The court emphasized the importance of establishing a legal right to squat and considered the impact of ongoing review exercises on the entitlement of squatters.

( 1 ) THE four writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regularisation of what they claims to be tehbazari rights. It is stated that petitioners were squatting in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar prior to 1982 when a survey was conducted in December,1982 and about 135 squatters were found to be eligible including the petitioners. Petitioners are stated to have been rehabilitated in a lane between post office and Alankar cinema in April, 1985 from where they were removed and rehabilitated behind MCD Hospital, Lajpat Nagar. In august, 1986 the petitioners are stated to have been allotted squatting site at IInd Block Pushpa Market, lajpat Nagar and continued there till May,1996. In december,1996, due to certain bomb blast in the area, petitioners were removed. The petitioners claim to have filed a writ petition in 1999 before the Hon ble supreme Court for allowing them to squat at their original site in Pushpa Market/central Market which writ petitions were disposed of on 5. 5. 2806 with liberty to approach the appropriate court.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that the respondent filed a list of the eligible squatters in terms of the chopra Committee recommendations which had been appointed to scrutinise such cases and the petitioners case was stated to have been rejected.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS aggrieved by rejection of their claims for regularly squatting submit that this is not in conformity with the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sodan Singh and others Vs. N. D. M. C and others 1989 (4) SCC 155. It is also contended that the respondent s decision in refusing to accept tehbazari charges from petitioners since 1994 is in violation of the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of india.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the MCD, it is stated that in pursuance to directions passed by hon ble Supreme Court in Gainda Ram and ors. Vs. MCD and others 1998 1 SCC 188 the eligibility of the squatters was considered by R. R. Chopra Committee which rejected the cases of the petitioners. It is further stated that in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court contained in the order dated 5. 5. 2000 in CW No. 573/99, the petitioners were held to be not covered under the scheme and thus their cases were rejected by Chopra committee.

( 5 ) IN so far as survey of 1982 is concerned, it is stated that pursuance to the survey scheme of open tehbazari consisting of grant of permission to squat on ear-marked spot of the area of 6"x4" was evolved which was finalised by Hon ble Supreme Court in Sudan Singh s case (supra) and in Gainda Ram s case (supra ). As per the scheme only squatters who were squatting from 1976 to 1982 and whose names appear in the survey conducted on 23. 12. 1982 were entitled to allotment of tehabazari site. The second category were of persons who had started squatting in the year 1982 onwards. Due publicity was given inviting applications from eligible squatters which were examined and all those who were rejected. All those who had not applied under scheme had no right to squat. In pursuance to the directions issued by Supreme Court on 1. 5. 1997, the MCD was directed to review all the cases of squatters found eligible or ineligible and those who had failed to apply under the scheme and only claimed hawking licence under Section 420 of the DMC Act, 1957. The persons who had not applied were not covered under the order dated 1. 5. 1997. The persons aggrieved were permitted to file appeal before the R. C. Chopra Committee which were not subject to further Challenge before any Court.

( 6 ) IT is thus stated that the present petitioners had not applied in the year 1982 fur allotment of site though they filed appeals before the R. C. Chopra committee. Since the petitioners had not applied in the year 1982, their appeals were held not to be maintainable.

( 7 ) IT is further stated that no squatters are being permitted in Pushpa Market which has been declared a non-squattin