Mr Nitesh Rana Through Aditya Narayan v. Mcd and Ors

O R D E R %

25.08.2026

¶1The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶2The petitioner is the owner of the premises B-45, Greater Kailash-I, South Delhi, New Delhi, which is right next to the subject property.

¶3The grievance of the petitioner is that the construction is being raised in the subject property in violation of the mandatory setback/open-space requirements prescribed under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016. It is stated that the setbacks in the subject property which is adjoining to the petitioner's property are less than the prescribed statutory norms and would affect the petitioner's right to enjoy this property.

¶4Notice in the petition was issued on 20th August, 2026.

¶5Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD and a copy has been handed over in Court.

¶6The same is taken on record.

¶7A copy has also been handed over to the petitioner appearing in person.

¶8As per the status report, in terms of the revised sanctioned plan dated 7th August, 2026, the following setbacks are permissible in the subject property:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. S. No. Setback/Open area Sanctioned Existing Front setback

4.17 m

4.17 m Right side setback

3.05 m

4.38 m Rear setback

4.60 m

6.40 m Left side open

1.16 m

1.16 m

¶9It is stated that the aforesaid setbacks are in terms of provisions of MPD-2021. The status report further submits that at present the construction in the subject property at plinth level and setbacks are maintained accordance with sanctioned building plan.

¶10The petitioner appearing in person states that the setbacks granted under the revised sanctioned plan are in violation of Unified Building Bye-Laws as well as provisions of MPD-2021 and he alleges mala fide on the part of MCD in granting the revised sanctioned plan. He submits that in terms of the old sanctioned plan, the permissible setback limit was three (3) meters.

¶11In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition in order to challenge the revised sanctioned plan in accordance with law by filing an appeal before the ATMCD and with liberty to raise all the issues before ATMCD.

¶12Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶13The construction being carried out by the respondents shall be carried out at their own risk and peril.

¶14It is made clear that this Court had not made any observations with regard to merits of the case. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶15Pending application stands disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J AUGUST 25, 2026/ds The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010388252026 + W.P.(C) 12050/2026 with CM APPL. 55929/2026 MR NITESH RANA THROUGH ADITYA NARAYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitesh Rana, Senior Advocate, petitioner in person with Mr. Aditya Narayan, POA Holder along with Mr. Yogesh Pachauri, Mr. Zainab Khan, Mr. Suyah Pandey and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advocates versus MCD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Parashar, Advocate for R-1/MCD Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Advocate for R-2 and R-5/GNCTD (Through VC) Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Ms. Sana Parveen and Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Advocates for DDA Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocate for Owner/Occupier CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL