The Delhi High Court on Monday temporarily restrained the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) from taking coercive action against a property linked to an accused in the murder of a 26-year-old man during Holi celebrations in Uttam Nagar.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal granted the accused’s family seven days to approach the MCD Appellate Tribunal challenging the demolition order, and directed the civic body to maintain status quo for 10 days.

The case relates to the murder of 26-year-old Tarun Bhutolia on March 4 during Holi celebrations. Subsequently, on March 8, the MCD demolished certain portions of a house allegedly linked to one of the accused, citing unauthorized construction.

The incident has taken on a communal dimension, as the accused belong to the Muslim community while the victim was Hindu.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Shahnaz on behalf of her father, Ismail, who has been in Tihar Jail since March 5 in connection with the case. She sought protection against further demolition of their home, alleging that the action was being carried out without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

Arguing before the Court, Shahnaz’s counsel contended that the construction in question was similar to that in the surrounding locality and alleged selective targeting.

“My Lord, please see the photos of the locality. What exists in our property is identical to other buildings. We are being singled out. Demolition has already been carried out, and further action is imminent. Kindly grant us an opportunity,” counsel submitted.

The plea further alleged that the demolition was a punitive measure linked to the criminal case against her father.

Meanwhile, the Court also issued notice to the MCD on an application seeking action against the same property for alleged unauthorized construction. It directed the civic body to inspect the premises and proceed strictly in accordance with law.

“By way of this application, the applicant seeks action against the petitioner’s property, alleging unauthorized construction. Issue notice. Reply be filed,” the Court ordered.