SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
RAJIV NARULA – Appellant
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS – Respondents
LPA 542, 575, 579, 581, 592, 593, 594, 595, 619, 621, 622, 624, 757/2015 & CM Nos.15646, 15647, 15648, 17179, 17180, 17181, 17363, 17543, 17544, 17545, 18106, 18107, 18108, 18110, 18111, 18112, 18114, 18115, 18116, 18130, 8131, 18132, 19181, 19182, 19183, 19189, 19190, 19191, 19434, 19435, 19452, 19438, 19439, 19440, 24252, 24253, 24254/2015
Decided On : 04.01.2016

Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs.K.Kaumudi and Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates.
Mr.Satyakam, Mr.Gautam Narayan & Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD with Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Mr.D.Rajeshwar Rao, Mr.Charnjeet Singh, Mr.Deeptakirti Verma, Mr.Dhananjai Rana, Mr.Devendra Dedha and Ms.Prabhsahaya Kaur and Mr.Avinash K.Sharma, Advocates. Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr.Ajay Arora and Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advocates for SDMC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Standing Counsel with Mr.Amit Mehra and Mr.Pawan Mathur, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Mr.Rajesh Gogna & Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Ajay Kalra, Mr.Adrija Thakur and Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocates for UOI.

Headnote:

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Coal depots - License - Possession - Forcible dispossession from tehbazari site - Writ petition was allowed - Appeal was preferred by MCD - Land belongs to DDA - Policy provides that MCD lands where the coal depots were running will be resumed - This does not mean that the MCD is required to show absolute ownership of the properties - If the possession of the properties has been handed over by the MCDs they would be within its rights to resume the same as a licensee - A licensee who came upon any immovable property by a licence, to deny the title of the licensor to such property - Where the property in question has not been allotted by MCD though a tehbazari license has been issued the revocation/ expiry of the said tehbazari license would only entail the person not to continue with the trade of coal - Held, he cannot be dispossessed from the property in question by MCD as it has no better title than the person occupying it - Judgment has been passed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties - If the parties are in a position to prove to the contrary on the issue of possession of the properties - They would be at liberty to take appropriate remedies before the Civil Court to ascertain their rights on the properties - If there is any rehabilitation policy in respect of tehbazari rights or the land belonging to Central Government, the same would be complied with - Applications are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. In the writ petitions filed by the 13 appellants, they inter alia prayed for directions to the respondents to place on record the policy prohibiting the sale of coal in Delhi, setting aside of Circular/Policy dated July 06, 2011, setting aside Resolution No.874 dated March 16, 2011 and Resolution No.10 dated May 27, 2011 and setting aside order dated November 16, 2011. Vide order dated November 16, 2011 the tehbazari rights of the appellants were cancelled and the properties in question were to be retrieved from the allottees/successors or occupiers and handed over to R.P.Cell, MCD pursuant to the show cause notices dated November 11, 2011. In LPA No.621/2015 there is an additional prayer of quashing the notice dated May 23, 2012 whereby the appellant was directed to remove the structure from the site and handover the possession to the respondent.

2. Broadly the averments in the writ petitions filed by the appellants and the counter affidavits by the respondents are:

Writ No.

LPA No.

Status of acquiring the property 

3749/2012

542/2015

The father of the appellant Late Nand Lal Narula migrated from Pakistan after partition and settled in India.  He was carrying on the coal business from the property in question somewhere in 1952.  The respondent started charging tehbazari fee for occupation of property in question in 1957. The Public Distribution System was implemented 1971. In the counter affidavit the above noted contents are stated to be matter of record though migration to India is denied for want of knowledge.  

3741/2012

575/2015

The father of the appellant Late Ram Lubaiya came to India somewhere in 1947 after partition and started the coal business.  He started paying the tehbazari fee in respect of property in question from 1967.  However, prior to 1967, no charges were collected from the deceased.  After the death, the wife of deceased started the coal business along with the appellant. In the counter affidavit the above noted contents are denied for want of knowledge.  

3486/2012

579/2015

The appellant and his family after partition in 1947 migrated to India as refugee.  The father of appellant occupied the property at Tihar Gaon in 1950 and started doing the coal business. Thereafter the appellant’s father was evicted from the said area and granted the possession of the property in question.  He was granted the tehbazari rights in 1970. In the counter affidavit the above noted contents are denied for want of knowledge.  

3747/2012

581/2015

The father of the appellant migrated from Pakistan after partition and settled in India. Appellant’s grandfather was doing the coal business from Tilak Nagar somewhere in 1963.  In 1973 the appellant’s father carried out the business in his name and thereafter he was shifted to the property in question and paid tehbazari fees. In the counter affidavit the above noted contents are stated to be matter of record.  

3739/2012

592/2015

The Appellant’s father was running the coal business with his partner Harbans Lal who was the allottee of tehbazari in 1970.  The partnership came to an end on June 21, 1982.  After that, the appellant was doing coal business with his father.   In the counter affidavit the above noted contents are stated to be wrong and denied except the tehbazari right granted in favour of Harbans Lal. The contents with respect to dissolution of partnership are denied for want of knowledge.

3485/2012

593/2015

The Appellant’s family migrated to India after partition in 1947.  The appellant’s father acquired the property in question and started the coal business from property in q

































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top