Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition Order of Signature View Apartments in Mukherjee Nagar

The Delhi High Court has recently upheld a single-judge bench’s order permitting the demolition and reconstruction of the Signature View Apartments in Delhi’s Mukherjee Nagar area.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while affirming the single-judge ruling, observed that the order was passed after considering multiple expert reports which found the buildings structurally unsafe. The bench noted that the repair works undertaken were merely cosmetic, as the very structure of the apartments was fundamentally weak.

Court further held that it could not, “by any stretch of imagination,” be said that there was no relevant material before the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) when it issued the demolition order.

The 21-page judgment came on a plea filed by appellant Man Mohan Singh Attri, who had challenged the single-judge order delivered in December last year. The single judge had upheld the order to demolish the Signature View Apartments, noting that the buildings had deteriorated to such an extent that they posed serious risks to residents.

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had constructed 336 flats known as Signature View Apartments for use by players and officials of the Commonwealth Games held in October 2010. After the Games, the flats were sold by the DDA through an information brochure issued in 2010, inviting applications for allotment. The apartments comprised 12 towers, one of which was allotted to the appellant, who has since been residing there with his family.

Before the division bench, the appellant argued that the demolition order dated December 18, 2023, was flawed. He contended that under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner must form an opinion based on a structural audit conducted by MCD officials themselves. Instead, the MCD relied on a letter from the DDA, which in turn was based on reports by an IIT Delhi professor and the Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research. Thus, the appellant claimed that the order failed to meet the legal requirement and was therefore invalid.

Court, however, rejected these submissions, holding that the single judge had taken the correct view in refusing to interfere with the demolition order."Merely because the Commissioner has not passed the order of removal of buildings; rather, it has been passed by his delegate, in our considered opinion, it will not make the order without jurisdiction or vitiated. It is to be further noticed that Section 348 empowers the authority concerned to pass an order of removal on his forming an opinion that the building is in ruinous condition or is likely to fall or it has become dangerous to the persons occupying the same or persons resorting to or passing by such a building," the Court said.

The bench further observed,“Various reports of investigation by the Structural Consultants and findings of the testing agency were placed before the authority concerned, who, on consideration of the said material, formed his opinion as per the requirement of Section 348 of the DMC Act and thereafter passed the order for demolition of the buildings in question."

It concluded, “For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which are under challenge in this intra-Court appeal, which accordingly fails. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.”

For Appellants: Sachin Jain and Mr. Ajay Kr. Agarwal, Advs.

For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Vidur Mohan, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Mr. Vidushi Singhania, Advs. for R-2/DDA Mr. Raghuvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel with Ms. Purnima Jain, Mr. Tanmay Jain, Advs. for R-3/GNCTD Ms. Puja S. Kalra, S.C. with Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. for MCD Mr. Amarendra Rakesh, President RWA and Mr. Gaurav Pandey, Secretary RWA

Case Title: Man Mohan Singh Attri v. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment Date: 17 September 2025

Bench: Chief Justice, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela