Uttam Nagar Holi Clash | 'Can't Club Police Protection Relief With Plea Against Demolition': Delhi HC Asks Kin Of Accused To File Fresh Petition

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (March 11) asked the kin of Uttam Nagar Holi Clash accused persons to file better petitions against demolition action proposed by the MCD against their property.

On Tuesday the court had orally told the MCD not to take any action until today, against the properties of two persons who are booked in an FIR over the death of a man at Uttam Nagar during Holi celebrations last week.

During the hearing today, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the two petitions also sought police protection to the petitioners, a cause which could not be clubbed with prayers against demolition. 

The court said that it is considering only 'prayer a' of the petition seeking direction to protect the house of the petitioner from arbitrary and illegal demolition by the MCD without following due process of law and against the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (2024).

As the petitioner's counsel said that the petitioners were receiving threats court orally said, "They are totally different causes of action. Here the jurisdiction of this court is with regard to unauthorized construction, encroachment and demolition. Police protection is not within my mandate...You file two separate petitions".

While dictating the order the court said,

"It is pointed out that averments in writ petition are vague and entirely separate causes of action have been made in the petition. Accordingly the Counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file better petitions with better particulars within one week. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty".

While the court did not pass any order granting protection as the petitions were withdrawn, however the counsel for the municipal body assured not to take any action against the properties which are subject matter of the two petitions before the court.

As the petitioners' counsel urged the court to grant protection the court orally said, "if...withdrawing it there can't be interim protection, but for your satisfaction he is agreeing...You file fresh petitions. They (MCD) will not do anything except whatever has been done". 

During the hearing ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the Delhi Police argued that the petition was based on a mere "apprehension" of demolition and that such pleas could not be allowed to stifle the investigation. 

"The entire petition is founded on sort of a suffused cause of action on MCD's apprehended demolition action...it is a case of misjoinder of causes of action. I am on pure law…if there has been a murder it has to be investigated. Cant use writ petition of somebody's else's property…," he said. 

The ASG suggested that the petitioner can file proper petitions confining it to the so called MCD violations. 

As the Court orally expressed that Petitioner has erred in clubbing the demolition action with the ongoing police investigation, Petitioner's counsel responded that they started receiving demolition threats from March 09, soon after registration of FIR on March 05.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar appearing for MCD on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher whose property is sought to be demolished as part of a routine exercise. The counsel added that the petition is of "mischievous" nature inasmuch as it omits to state that the property is not an encroachment.

"She (petitioner) is aware of fact if it is public street, she won't get protection...she has to say on oath that her property is not on public street. Let petition be a proper petition. Then I can be asked to file counter...she has to state on oath that she has not covered drain," Poddar submitted.

The Court orally said that it will ask the Petitioner to amend the petition but meanwhile, no adverse action should be taken by the authorities. "It can't be that I tell him to file better petition, and in 2 days…"

The senior counsel assured the Court that no action had been taken after March 07. "I have only cleared drains, I have not demolished the property...Today's photo of her house is intact," he further clarified.

During the hearing, the Court also questioned MCD for not issuing demolition notices to the party. The counsel however responded that encroachment can be removed without giving notice, referring to Supreme Court's decision in In: Re demolition of structures matter. 

One of the petition states that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the house situated at JJ Colony in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and has been residing for the last 4 decades. It was submitted that the Petitioner and her husband have been regularly paying electricity bills and other municipal charges in respect of the said residential property

The plea states that on March 5 an FIR was registered under Section 110(Attempt to commit culpable homicide), 3(5) (common intention) BNS in relation to a local altercation between neighbours.

The petitioner claims that the incident allegedly arose from a trivial dispute involving children playing with balloons, which resulted in a verbal altercation and minor scuffle between two neighbouring families. However, the petitioners claim that despite the fact that the dispute was purely personal, certain elements attempted to maliciously give a communal colour to the incident.

The plea alleges that on March 7 a mob unlawfully gathered in the locality and allegedly spread misinformation portraying the incident as a communal attack and certain members of various organizations allegedly entered the house of the accused persons by breaking open the locks and doors and vandalized the premises, setting it on fire.

The petitioners allege that on March 8 the MCD demolished the entire residential structure of an accused person using bulldozers, without issuing any prior notice, show cause notice, or giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons.

The plea claims that the demolition was carried out arbitrarily, immediately after the registration of the FIR, which creates a strong apprehension that the demolition was undertaken as a punitive measure merely because the occupants were implicated in the criminal case.

The plea submits that the doors and locks of the petitioner's house, who is the mother of another accused person, were broken open by the public and she apprehends that her house might be demolished.

The petitioners are represented by advocates Divyesh Pratap Singh, Amit Sangwan, Bharat Mishra.

Case title: Jarina v/s State (NCT of Delhi ) & Anr. and Shahnaz v/s State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

WP 3020 of 2026, WP 3021 of 2026