The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the growing trend of misusing judicial proceedings as a means to extort money from individuals involved in unauthorized construction. While reaffirming that authorities must act firmly against illegal construction, the Court clarified that its forum cannot be converted into a tool of harassment or blackmail.

 

Justice Mini Pushkarna, while dealing with a plea concerning alleged unauthorized construction in Jamia Nagar, emphasized:

 

 

The petitioner, Aalim, had approached the Court seeking directions against three individuals accused of raising illegal construction in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. The prayer sought strict action from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and demolition of the alleged unauthorized structure.

 

However, the Court found several red flags in the petition:

• The petitioner was not a resident of Delhi and was based in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

• He had no direct connection with the property, locality, or residents affected by the construction.

• Similar multiple petitions concerning the same property had been filed earlier, raising suspicion about an orchestrated effort to pressure the builders.

 

The counsel representing the three private respondents argued that the petitioner was acting in collusion with others as part of an extortion racket. According to them, several individuals were filing repetitive petitions before the Court, not out of genuine concern for urban development or legality, but with the sole motive of extracting money from those engaged in construction.

 

The MCD informed the Court that:

• A Show Cause Notice had already been issued against the property.

• A Demolition Order was passed.

• Part-demolition action had been carried out on July 10, with further demolition scheduled for September 4.

 

The Special Task Force (STF) also highlighted that numerous such cases had been filed in the High Court by persons completely unrelated to the property, signaling misuse of judicial proceedings.

 

The Court took serious note of the fact that the petitioner himself was absent when the matter was taken up, despite the case being listed for some time before passing of the order.

 

Key findings of the Court included:

1. No locus standi of petitioner – The petitioner neither lived in the area nor had any genuine concern with the property in question.

2. Pattern of extortion – The Court recorded the submissions of the respondents that they had been receiving calls demanding money on account of the construction, which corroborated the suspicion of blackmail.

3. Action already taken – Since the MCD was already proceeding with demolition, there was no necessity for further judicial intervention.

 

Justice Pushkarna strongly deprecated the practice of filing frivolous petitions to harass individuals and exploit ongoing construction disputes.

 

While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to investigate how different individuals were repeatedly filing petitions with respect to the same property.

 

The Court also directed that the antecedents of the petitioner be examined to ascertain whether he was involved in an organized attempt at extortion under the guise of public interest.

 

This ruling reinforces two critical principles:

• Courts will not tolerate abuse of process for personal gains or blackmail.

• While unauthorized construction remains a serious issue in Delhi, its regulation must occur through statutory bodies like the MCD, not through frivolous litigations filed by unrelated individuals.

 

The judgment balances strict enforcement against illegal construction with the need to protect judicial forums from being reduced to instruments of extortion or harassment.