Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 434
High Court of Delhi
G. ROHINI AND RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Sadhna Grover & Another – Respondents
LPA. No. 240 of 2006 & CM No. 12177 of 2012
Decided On : 18-03-2015
For the Appellant:Mini Pushkarna, Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocates
For the Respondents:R1, Hameed S. Shaikh, R2, Pawan Mathur, Himanshu Gupta, Advocates
The limitations of tehbazari rights and the need for rehabilitation policies for affected parties were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Coal Depot - Land Allotment - Indian Easements Act, 1882, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - The court discussed the entitlement of the respondent to an alternative site for running a coal depot, the policy decisions regarding tehbazari sites for coal depots, and the legal rights of tehbazari holders. The court also highlighted the limitations of tehbazari rights and the need for rehabilitation policies for the affected parties.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought relief after being dispossessed from a plot of land used for a coal depot, claiming entitlement to an alternative site and restoration of the demolished structure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's tehbazari rights for the coal depot had ended in 1995 and that the respondent was not entitled to an alternative site for a coal depot. The court also noted the challenge to the rehabilitation policy by the respondent.
Issues: Entitlement to alternative site, rehabilitation policy challenge
Ratio Decidendi: The tehbazari rights for the coal depot ended in 1995, and the respondent was not entitled to an alternative site for a coal depot. The court's decision also highlighted the need for rehabilitation policies for the affected parties.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order directing the allotment of land to the respondent for a coal depot and allowed the appeal, while observing that the rights of the respondent in the other writ petition challenging the rehabilitation policy would not be affected.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This intra court appeal impugns the orders dated 22nd November, 2005 and 30th November, 2005 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6827/1999 filed by the respondent No.1 [respondent No.2 is the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)]. Vide order dated 22nd November, 2005, the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was directed to allot to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner on license basis, 200 sq. yrds. of land for running a coal depot. Vide subsequent order dated 30th November, 2005, the application of the appellant MCD for recall/modification of the order dated 22nd November, 2005 was dismissed.
2. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, pleading:
“(i) that her father-in-law Sh. Madan Lal Grover was, vide letter dated 25th March, 1969 of the appellant MCD, allotted a plot/site admeasuring 200 sq. yrds. neighbouring F/437-B, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, on tehbazari basis at Rs.20/- per month, for use as a coal depot;
(ii) that the said site was given to Sh. Madan Lal Grover at the time of widening of Shankar Road in lieu of his coal depot site at Shankar Road;
(iii) that the said Sh. Madan Lal Grover constructed an office on and a boundary wall around the said coal depot plot and obtained electricity and water connection at the said site;
(iv) that Sh. Madan Lal Grover died on 19th July, 1979 and thereafter the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was paying the tehbazari/license fee;
(v) that on 26th October, 1999, DDA demolished the existing structure on the said plot/site, without notice and opportunity of hearing and was also not allowing the respondent No.1/writ petitioner from doing business on the said plot/site.
Accordingly, the reliefs of, (a) restraining the DDA and MCD from dispossessing the respondent No.1/writ petitioner from the said land; and, (b) of a direction to the DDA/MCD to restore the structure demolished illegally, were claimed in the writ petition.
3. DDA filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition inter alia stating, (I) that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was at best a licensee with respect to the said plot/site and the license in her favour had also not been validated beyond 31st December, 1989 and in any case such license did not confer any right, title or interest in the respondent No.1/writ petitioner with respect to the said plot/site; (II) that the said land belongs to the Government of India and was transferred to the DDA vide letter dated 12th May, 1984 of the Department of Rehabilitation (Settlement Wing); (III) that finding the plot/site to be encroached upon, the encroachment was removed on 26th October, 1999 and DDA had put up its own fencing around the site; (IV) that MCD had got nothing to do with the said land, which belonged to the Ministry of Rehabilitation and since 12th May, 1984 was under the management and control of DDA.
4. Vide ad-interim order dated 19th November, 1999 in the writ petition, status quo with respect to the plot of land was directed to be maintained. Vide order dated 5th August, 2004, the officials of the DDA and MCD were directed to find out, as to how the MCD had given a tehbazari right with respect to the subject plot/site, if the same belonged to DDA and to also find out, whether the subject land actually belonged to the DDA. On 1st October, 2004, the learned Single Judge was informed, (A) that there is no policy of MCD to issue tehbazari for coal depots, much less for sites admeasuring 200 sq. yrds.; (B) that tehbazari sites are being allocated for an area of 6’ X 4’; (C) that no tehbazari was ever issued to Sh. Madan Lal Grover. In view of the said stand of the appellant MCD, the counsel for the DDA stated that it was not possible for the DDA to allot any alternative site to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge in the order dated 1st October, 2004 observed that that the stand of the MCD was at variance with the documen
