New Delhi, Feb 19 A Delhi court has issued a notice to the deputy commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and directed senior engineers to appear in person after finding that a status report filed by the civic body in a property dispute case was not in compliance with its earlier directions.
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi, was hearing a civil suit concerning the demolition of an unauthorised, disputed property by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
“Court notice be issued to the deputy commissioner (DC), MCD, calling upon him to either file a proper status report in compliance with the order dated December 2, 2025, on his behalf or to remain personally present before this court on the next date of hearing,” the judge said in his order dated February 17.
The defendants had earlier been restrained from carrying out any further construction at the disputed suit property.
On December 2, 2025, the MCD filed a status report, according to which the demolition order dated October 23, 2025, had been passed.
“The status report has been filed in a cursory and mechanical manner, only to complete the formality of filing a status report today,” the court noted in its order dated December 2, 2025.
The court then sought an explanation in writing from the concerned executive engineer, assistant engineer, and junior engineer, which was to be duly forwarded by the concerned deputy commissioner along with an updated status report by February 17.
However, the status report filed on February 17 bore “only the signatures of the assistant engineer and junior engineer”, and was neither accompanied by separate written explanations nor duly forwarded by the deputy commissioner, as directed.
“Perusal of the record clearly reveals that the status report filed today is not in compliance with the order dated December 2, 2025. Consequently, the same cannot be treated as a proper or valid status report,” the court said Tuesday.
The counsel for the defendant argued that the restraint order granted by the court on October 29, 2025, was based on an earlier MCD status report, and not merely on the plaintiff’s submissions.
It was also submitted that according to the latest report, the deviations and excess coverage area in the suit property were “compoundable in nature” and that the owner had undertaken to get them compounded at the time of issuance of the completion certificate.
On that basis, the defendant sought vacation of the restraint order.
The court, however, declined to vacate the interim relief, observing that in the absence of a proper status report in terms of its earlier directions, the plea could not be considered at this stage.
Accordingly, the court issued a notice to the deputy commissioner to either file the proper status report in compliance with its earlier directions or to be physically present before the court by the next date of hearing, i.e., April 18.
It also directed that the concerned executive engineer and assistant engineer shall remain physically present on the next date, or the officer who conducted the site inspection must appear.
The court clarified that the interim stay orders on the disputed property shall continue till April 18.
