The building that collapsed in Delhi’s Satya Niketan area on September 6, killing seven people, had neither a sanctioned building plan nor a completion certificate, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has revealed in response to an RTI application filed by Livemint.
The civic body also said it had not received any complaints regarding unauthorised construction or structural safety at the property before the incident.
The response, however, does not explicitly clarify whether the property was classified as an “unauthorised/illegal construction” in its records.
The collapsed Hostel Daze building in Satya Niketan was Property No. 14.
Livemint filed the RTI application with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on September 15, seeking details of the building’s approvals, safety inspections, complaints, licences and action taken by civic authorities before the collapse. The application was transferred to the MCD on September 17.
After receiving no response, a first appeal was filed on October 22. The MCD subsequently disposed of the request by issuing its reply on November 3.
The MCD said it had no inspection reports, sealing orders or demolition notices concerning the adjoining property, explaining that it had not booked the premises as no ongoing unauthorised construction had been observed and no related complaints had been received.
“There is no inspection report, sealing order or demolition orders since the property was not booked for the reason that there was no on-going unauthorized construction noticed, or any complaint received for the same,” the reply read to the question “Provide a certified copy of inspection report, sealing order, and demolition notice issued by MCD for building immediately adjoining/next to collapsed structure () in Satya Niketan.”
However, according to ANI, the MCD declared it to be in a “ruinous/dangerous condition” and a potential threat to its occupants and nearby residents.
In an order issued by the Executive Engineer (Building)-I, South Zone, the civic body said the premises were occupied and had been found to be structurally dangerous. The demolition direction was issued under Sections 348 and 491 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
The MCD said no show-cause notices had been issued or sealing orders passed against private PG accommodations, student hostels or residential buildings in between January 1, 2025, and September 5, 2026.
“No such notices or orders passed since 01.01.2025 to 05.09.2026,” it said.
On complaints specifically concerning the collapsed property, the MCD said no reports relating to unauthorised construction or structural safety was received since January 1, 2025.
“Since 01.01.2025, no such complaints regarding unauthorized construction or structural safety was received by the Department against property under reference,” it asserted.
When asked for the inspection register and action-taken reports (ATRs) concerning complaints by resident welfare associations or students about structural risks and waterlogging in basements in Satya Niketan, the department referred to its response on the previous question instead of providing the requested records.
The department also did not establish whether the collapsed building had a valid commercial or lodging licence to operate as a PG accommodation.
In response to the question on its commercial-use permissions, the MCD said registration charges and conversion charges had been deposited by the owner for different floors over various years between 2007 and 2019. However, it did not provide a clear confirmation of a valid commercial PG licence or permission to operate the premises as a hostel.
The RTI also sought a list of PG accommodations, student hostels and boarding houses operating in Satya Niketan, along with the names of their registered owners and operators.
The MCD said 101 PGs were operating in the area. However, it did not provide the names of the properties, their owners or the operators, as requested.
Another question sought the number of PG accommodations in the Satya Niketan ward that held valid No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Delhi Fire Service (DFS), along with certified structural stability certificates as of September this year.
Instead of providing separate figures, the department referred to its response, stating that 101 PGs were operating in the area. Consequently, the number of accommodations meeting both safety-related requirements remains unanswered in the RTI reply.
Livemint also sought the names and designations of the MCD junior engineers (JEs) and assistant engineers (AEs) responsible for monitoring unauthorised construction and structural safety in Satya Niketan between August 2025 and September 2026.
The department did not disclose any names. It responded, “No file of the property in terms of construction or use was being dealt with by any official.”
The RTI application also sought copies of any preliminary inquiry report, survey report or structural safety audit conducted by the MCD following the Delhi High Court’s directions concerning the September 6 building collapse and adjoining properties in Satya Niketan.
However, the civic body did not provide any such document. Instead, it maintained that no inspection was required before the collapse.
In the latest development, Delhi Police has filed a chargesheet against six people in connection with the September 6 invoking culpable homicide not amounting to murder and several other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), according to news agencies.
The collapse in the national capital’s Satya Niketan area claimed seven lives and left several others injured.
An FIR was registered at the South Campus police station following the incident. The chargesheet names six accused: Building owner Hari Ram Gupta, His wife Urmila Gupta, Mahesh Gupta, Sanoj Kumar, Sudhanshu Lavnish Kumar and Shubham Tyagi.
The police have invoked Section 105 of the BNS, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Other provisions included in the chargesheet are Section 125(a), concerning rash or negligent acts endangering human life; Section 3(5), relating to common intention; and Section 290, which deals with negligence during the repair or construction of buildings.
The chargesheet also includes Section 115(2), concerning voluntarily causing hurt, and Sections 324(2) and 324(4), which deal with mischief and damage or loss caused to public or private property.
