Court Cannot Be Used As Tool For Extortion Over Unauthorized Construction: Delhi High Court

A plea was filed related to alleged illegal construction in Jamia Nagar.

A Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held, “Though, this Court recognizes the fact that action against unauthorized construction has to be taken strictly, at the same time, this Court cannot be used as a tool to extort money from the persons carrying out such construction. This is clearly abuse and misuse of the process of the Court.”

Advocate Bharat Malhotra appeared for the Respondents.

Background

The case arose from a petition filed by an individual, seeking the Court’s intervention to stop and demolish allegedly unauthorized construction by three persons at a residential property located in Jamia Nagar.

However, counsel representing the alleged violators submitted that this was not the only petition filed concerning the said property. According to them, multiple petitions had been filed by unrelated individuals, none of whom were residents of the locality or had any personal stake in the property.

They contended that these repeated filings were part of a larger extortion scheme carried out by a group of individuals attempting to coerce money from those engaged in construction.

Finding

The Court examined the background of the petitioner and found that he was not a resident of Delhi, nor had any demonstrable interest in the property or the surrounding locality. In fact, the petitioner was a resident of Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, which the Court found to be significant.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), in its submissions, informed the Court that appropriate legal action had already been initiated.

The Special Task Force’s counsel further submitted that a number of such frivolous petitions were being filed before the Court by people unconnected to the area, solely to harass and extort money from property owners.

The Court noted that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing, despite the case having been heard for a considerable period.

The Court remarked that this pattern of conduct filing repeated petitions concerning the same property by unconnected individuals raised serious concerns about abuse of legal process.

“The Court notes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8 that they have been receiving calls for extortion of money, on account of the construction carried out by them. This Court deprecates this practice,” the order stated.

The Court acknowledged that while the property may involve unauthorized construction, the MCD was already taking action, and the presence of such construction does not justify misuse of the Court's jurisdiction through malicious or extortionate litigation.

Given the suspicious nature of multiple petitions filed regarding the same property by unrelated persons, the High Court directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to conduct a thorough investigation.

Specifically, the DCP was instructed to investigate the antecedents of the petitioner and examine how different individuals were filing petitions related to the same property.

Finding that appropriate civic action was already underway, the Court declined to issue further directions regarding demolition or restraint of construction, and instead focused on curbing the misuse of judicial forums for ulterior motives.

Cause Title: Aalim v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. [2025:DHC:6933]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates Bharat Malhotra, Himanshi Soni, Prabhsahay Kaur, Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Rajesh Kumar Singh,Priyanka Singh, Rohish Arora and Amit Bidhuri