1. Petition for relocation and allotment of tehbazari site — Mutation rejected as transfer post cut-off date. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Kamal Jeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11844/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S. Khan, Akbar Kaleem
For the Respondents: Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Aryan Tyagi, Jaskeerat Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S. Khan, Akbar Kaleem
For the Respondents: Meherunnisa A. Jaitley, Aryan Tyagi, Jaskeerat Singh
Transfers of tehbazari sites occurring after the cut-off date of February 6, 2007, are not eligible for mutation or relocation by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Headnote:(A) Tehbazari Sites - Mutation and Transfer - Cut-off date - Transfers or changes of hand occurring after the prescribed cut-off date of 6th February 2007 are not recognized for mutation or relocation purposes in accordance with MCD circulars and judicial precedents. (Para 17, 21, 23)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relocation and mutation of the tehbazari site despite the transfer occurring after the cut-off date of 6th February 2007.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
-
practice and procedure
- hybrid hearing (Para 1)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims entitlement based on transfer from prior holder; MCD relies on circular barring post-2007 transfers. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Transfer date was post-6th February, 2007; thus, petitioner not entitled under MCD circular and prior judgment. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Transfers or changes of hand after the cut-off date of 6th February, 2007 are not liable to be recognized for mutation. (Para 17 , 23 )
5. Petition dismissed as petitioner not entitled to any relief due to change of hand after cut-off date. (Para 24 )
6. What is the legal effect of a transfer of a tehbazari site after the cut-off date of 6th February, 2007?
Such transfers are not liable to be recognized for mutation or relocation purposes, as per the MCD circular dated 9th October, 2009 and the Gainda Ram judgment. (Para 11 , 17 , 21 , 23 )
7. Can a subsequent transferee claim better rights than the original transferor when the transfer is post cut-off?
No. If the transferor has no right to claim relocation due to the transfer being post-cut-off, a subsequent transferee cannot acquire any valid right. (Para 15 , 16 , 23 )
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the MCD’) to issue a relocation letter and for allotment of tehbazari site to the Petitioner at the Mata Sundari Marg, Delhi.
3. The brief background of Petitioner’s case is that, he was a tehbazari holder of site bearing No. 3545, size 7x5, covered at, Bapu Market in front of Gandhi Maidan Parking, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the subject site’).
4. According to the Petitioner, the subject site was originally allotted to one Shri. Ram Rattan. However, vide letter dated 27th February, 2011, issued by the MCD, the subject site was transferred in the name of one Mr. Danish Ahmed.
5. The Petitioner and Mr. Danish Ahmed are stated to have entered into a partnership vide partnership deed dated 15th March, 2016. Thereafter, the said partnership was dissolved on 30th March, 2016.
6. Certain documents were executed by Mr. Danish Ahmed in favour of the Petitioner on 30th March, 2016. It is the case of the Petitioner, that he is now the owner of the subject site.
7. Sometime in 2018, the tehbazari sites in Bapu Nagar market were demolished by the MCD, with the intent to shift the same to Mata Sundari Marg. Thus, he is entitled to a new tehbazari site at Mata Sundari Marg, Delhi.
8. The prayer in this petition is for relocation of the Petitioner and for allotment of a new tehbazari site at Mata Sundri Marg in favour of the Petitioner, and for mutation of the earlier site in favour of the Petitioner.
9. Mr. M.S. Khan, ld. Counsel for Petitioner submits that the subject site is, in fact, vacant, and the Petitioner is entitled to allotment of the same.
10. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the MCD has relied upon the Circular bearing No. CL&EC/TTR/2009/532 dated 9th October, 2009 issued by the MCD (hereinafter, ‘the circular’).
11. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the MCD that in the said circular, mutation of sites was permitted only for transfers which have taken place prior to 6th February, 2007, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)1699/1987 titled ‘Gainda Ram&Ors.v.MCD’ vide judgment dated 9th April, 2009.
12. Further, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the MCD that the Scrutiny Committee of the MCD, for the purpose of allotment of site at Mata Sundari Marg had scrutinised 100 files, out of which the file of Mr. Danish Ahmed was held to be ineligible for allotment of site at the Mata Sundari Marg. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee titled Shifting of tehbazaries of Bapu Market for Redevelopment/Reconstruction of Gandhi Maidan, MLUG Parking dated 23rd April, 2018. The same is taken on record.
13. The Court has heard the ld. Counsel for the parties. Mr. Danish Ahmed had previously filed two writ petitions. In the first petition, being W.P. (C) 1308/2025 titled ‘ Danish Ahmed v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ’ which was filed by Mr. Danish Ahmed, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
14. Thereafter, a second writ petition was filed by Mr. Danish Ahmed being W.P.(C) 14221/2025 titled ‘ Danish Ahmed v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ’ was also dismissed vide order dated 2nd February, 2026.
15. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 2nd February, 2026, this Court notes that the Petitioner therein i.e., Mr. Danish Ahmed, was not entitled for any alternate site at Mata Sundri Marg, due to gross concealment of facts.
16. The Petitioner herein, Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh, who is now stated to have acquired rights from Mr. Danish Ahmed, has now approached the Court with the prayer that he be recognised as a valid tehbazari holder.
17. In terms of the circular, any transfer or sale or change of hand which has taken place after 6th February, 2007 would not be liable to be recognised.
18. The only ground which is relied upo
