$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement reserved on: 02.12.2025

Judgement delivered on:24.12.2025

+ LPA 553/2019, CM APPL. 38711/2019 and CM APPL.

38714/2019

PANCHKUIAN FURNITURE MARKET ASSOCIATION

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra and Mr.

Lovkesh Sawhney, Senior Advocates along with Mr. Anoop Kumar, Mr. Kartik Dhingra and Mr. Rohit Kumar,

Advocates.

versus

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood, SPC along

with Ms. Shikha Sood, Mr. Anmol Vashisht and Mr. Samarth Sood, Advocates for

R-1.

Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Navneet

Saharan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G E M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 29.05.2019, Impugned Judgement passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in case being W.P.(C) 7775/2016, titled as ‘Panchkuian Furniture Market Association (Regd.) v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & Anr’.

2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the learned Single Judge has rejected the contentions of the Appellant to the effect that the sub-lease in favour of the members of the Appellant should have corresponded with the original terms of the demise of the land upon the Respondents herein, ergo that the lease should be for a period of 99 years. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has also negated the plea of the members of the Appellant that the members would, as lessees in perpetuity become beneficieries to the entire bouquet of rights appurtenant thereto and in particular, the right to transfer the same.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief factual matrix relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the present Appeal is as follows:-

(a) The Appellant is a Registered Association comprised of members who were carrying on their businesses, under the Licence/Tehbazari Rights granted by the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi, MCD, from shops located at Panchkuian Road, New Delhi.

(b) The above-stated market located at Panchkuian Market, New Delhi, was required to be removed as Respondent No. 1 required the above-said land of the Panchkuian Market, for the construction of Delhi Metro Line-3, which came in the way of alignment of the then proposed Delhi Metro Line-3, which was being built by Respondent No. 1.

(c) Respondent No. 2, taking into consideration the need of relocating the members of the Appellant for expediting the Construction of the said Delhi Metro Line-3, constituted a committee to address the issue of relocation and rehabilitation of the members of the Appellant. The Committee met on 18.07.2003, wherein it recommended that land admeasuring 1.55 hectare at Bhai Vir Singh Marg be handed over by the Land and Development Office, L&DO to Respondent No. 1, for the relocation and rehabilitation of the members of Appellant.

(d) The recommendation of the committee came to be accepted by the competent authority of Respondent No. 2 and Letter of Allotment dated 09.10.2003, conveying the sanction of the President of India for allotment of land measuring 21403.20 sq. meters as shown in the L&DO's Plan No. 3274/1 at Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi, to Respondent No. 1 for relocation and rehabilitation of affected shop keepers of Panchkuian Road, came to be issued and Respondent No. 1 was handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said land.

(e) Through the erstwhile MCD, Respondent No.1, vide Notices dated 19.10.2005, terminated the License/Tehbazari Rights, giving the members of the Appellant seven days’ time to remove their respective permanent structures.

(f) Against the termination notices, the Appellant filed W.P.(C)

No. 17190-17272/2005 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 02.06.2006, allowed the petition and restrained Respondent No. 1 and MCD from evicting or demolishing the Appellant’s members’ shops without due process, noting their long-settled possession.

(g) Aggrieved by the a