Madan Lal Malhotra vs Mcd

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 13 May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 2241/2012
MADAN LAL MALHOTRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Kumar Maggo, Advocate.
versus
MCD .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order
th
dated 17 November, 2011, passed by the respondent/MCD whereby the
tehbazari granted to the petitioner at a plot near 33/16 Ashok Nagar, New
Delhi, was cancelled.
2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as
follows:
i. In the year 1970, MCD allotted a tehbazari site near 33/16 Ashok
Nagar, New Delhi, to the petitioner’s father for running a coal depot
and storage of coal .
ii. Subsequently, the said tehbazari site was transferred in favour of the
th
petitioner on 19 June, 1979, and the license of the coal depot of the
said site was also transferred in the name of the petitioner.
iii. The petitioner has been running the coal depot at the Tehbazari site
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 1 of 9

until 1994.
iv. In 1994, the Government of NCT of Delhi banned coal distribution
and prohibited coal depots in Delhi. As a result, the petitioner applied
to MCD for permission to change the trade from that of a coal depot
to trading of hardware, paints and sanitary goods.
v. MCD granted permission for change of trade vide communication
th
dated 30 October, 1998. Since then, the petitioner has been running
the business of trading in hardware, paints and sanitary goods at the
said tehbazari site.
nd
vi. On 22 September, 2011, MCD issued a notice to the petitioner to
show cause as to why an alternate tehbazari site be not allocated to
the petitioner in terms of the new policy adopted by MCD.
th
vii. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice on 28 September 2011.
th
viii. On 17 November, 2011, the impugned order was passed by MCD
directing the eviction of the petitioner from the tehbazari site.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been
filed.
th
4. Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 8 May
2012, on which date status quo with regard to the tehbazari site near
property no. 33/16, Ashok Nagar, Municipal Market, New Delhi, was
directed to be maintained.
th
5. On 9 May, 2013, the aforesaid interim order was confirmed till
disposal of the writ petition.
6. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
th
respondent/MCD on 10 December, 2015. The case set up by MCD in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 2 of 9

said affidavit is as follows:
i. The original tehbazari was granted only for running a coal depot, but
coal distribution under the Public Distribution System was banned
since 1994 therefore, the original public purpose itself ceased to exist.
ii. The petitioner is only claiming a tehbazari right over the land in
question, which is in the nature of a license. The only right which the
petitioner could claim as a tehbazari holder was to have his license
renewed as per the Tehbazari Policy. The rights under a license are in
the nature of temporary permission and are capable of being
terminated/modified.
iii. Earlier, the MCD had a policy of allotting large pieces of land
admeasuring 100-200 square yards on tehbazari basis. However, the
said policy has been withdrawn by MCD in public interest as huge
tracts of land cannot be given for running private businesses to a
party.
iv. The basic purpose of allotting tehbazari license is to provide means of
livelihood to the poor persons and the same cannot be allowed to be
converted into running profitable businesses.
th
v. MCD adopted a new comprehensive policy on 6 July, 2011
(hereinafter ‘Policy’), in connection with sites allotted for coal depot
on tehbazari basis. The impugned order has been issued in terms of
the said policy. The aforesaid policy has been upheld by this Court.
vi. The petitioner has been offered allotment of an alternative 7x5 site
subject to scrutiny by the Zonal Vending Committee.
th
vii. By way of the impugned order dated 17 November, 2011, the earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 3 of 9

decision of MCD permitting change of trade was withdrawn.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s tehbazari site does not fall under the policy of MCD for
alternative tehbazari sites of coal depot since the petitioner is running a
hardware, paints and sanitary goods business at the allocated site with due
permission from MCD, which was granted in favour of the petitioner. He
submits that there has been no violation of the terms of the tehbazari site.
Hence, the MCD could not have terminated the tehbazari . He further
submits that the show-cause notice issued by MCD does not deal with the
permission of change of trade granted to the petitioner.
8. Counsel for the respondent/MCD submits that the tehbazari site
allotted to the petitioner was on a temporary basis and the same has been
th
withdrawn validly as per the impugned order dated 17 November 2011 in
pursuance of the Policy adopted by MCD. The petitioner was also offered
the allotment of an alternate site of 7x5 feet, subject to the deposit of
documents and scrutiny thereof. The said Policy was challenged before the
Division Bench and the same has been upheld in LPA 542/2015. She
submits that the petitioner cannot claim a vested right over the tehbazari site
as the said tehbazari was a mere license and not a conferment of title in
favour of the petitioner. She further submits that it is not the petitioner’s
case that he has been discriminated in any manner with regard to the
adoption of the said Policy and the subsequent withdrawal of the permission
granted.
9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the record.
10. It is an admitted position that the tehbazari site was originally allotted
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 4 of 9

to father of the petitioner for the purposes of the distribution of coal.
Subsequently, on account of the prohibition of coal distribution by the
Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 1994, MCD permitted change of
th
trade in favour of the petitioner vide communication dated 30 October,
th
1998. Later on, while adopting a comprehensive policy on 6 July, 2011,
with regard to the tehbazari sites allotted for distribution of coal products,
the said permission was withdrawn by MCD. In this regard, a reference may
be made to the relevant extracts from the impugned order:
“Whereas, the coal depot plot near property No. 33/16, Ashok Nagar,
Mpl. Market, New Delhi-18 is the Municipal Property, the business of
coal is no longer permissible in Delhi through Public Distribution
System (PDS), it was decided to offer Tehbazari sites measuring to 7’
x 5’ to these Tehbazari holders in the area near their existing coal
depot site falling in the same zone or nearby Zone as approved by the
Corporation.
And whereas it is pertinent to mention that the Sh. Madan Lal has
specifically averred in the reply dated 28-09-2011 that on account of
prohibition on coal distribution by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under
PDS since 1994, the MCD had allowed the change of trade on 30-10-
1998 and the tehbazari rent of Rs.200/- per month has been remitted
till 31-3-2009. Since uniform policy regarding coal depot has been
formulated and permission for change of trade as reflected for copy of
letter submitted by you also stands withdrawn.
And whereas, the matter was place before the competent Authority in
terms of the policy of the corporation and the decision dated 30-10-
1998 allowing the change of trade by the subordinate officials of the
MCD have been reviewed and upon examination of the matter, it is
felt that the use of public land given on meager tehbazari fee for
supply of coal to the public at large under the PDS cannot be allowed
to be used as hardware, paint and sanitary goods the too without
license/permission from the Delhi Govt. agencies.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 5 of 9

In view of the above, the Competent Authority has taken a conscious
decision that the said Tehbazari is cancelled and the site in question
be retrieved from the allottee/successor or occupier and be handed
over to R.P. Cell, MCD for starting the other projects of Public utility.
Sh. Madan, Lal/his legal heir, successor/Mutation holder, if found
entitled for allotment of Tehbazari site measuring 7’ x 5’ subject to
fulfillment of various required documents and the same will be placed
before the Zonal Vending Committee for further approval of
allotment. He is directed to show willingness along with the requisite
documents like allotment letter, Succession Certificate, Mutation
papers (if there is change in hand of Tehbazari) immediately.”
th
11. A reference may be made to the aforesaid Policy dated 6 July 2011,
adopted by MCD, the relevant extract which is set out below:
“1. Since the business of coal is no longer permissible and relevant in
the present context, the Tehbazari holders or their legal successors
should be offered Tehbazari site measuring 7' x 5', preferably in areas
near their existing coal depot sites, failing which in the same zone or
nearby zones.”
th
12. The aforesaid policy of MCD has been upheld by judgment dated 27
July, 2015, passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 3455/2012
titled “ Shanti Devi v. GNCTD” and other connected matters .
13. The aforesaid judgment was taken up in appeal before the Division
Bench. Subsequently, the Policy has also been upheld by the Division Bench
th
in its judgment dated 4 January, 2016, passed in LPA 542/2015 titled
“ Rajiv Narula v. GNCTD and Ors.” The relevant extracts from the said
judgment are set out below:
“9. The contentions on behalf of the two MCDs i.e. South Delhi
Municipal Corporation and North Delhi Municipal; Corporation (in
short title ‘MCDs’) are same, Learned counsels contend that
appellants’ claim only a tehbazari right over the land in question and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 6 of 9

the tehbazari being a license, the right was purely personal given to
a particular person to do a particular business at a particular place.
Discretion is vested with the MCDs to renew or not the tehbazari
license and it cannot be sought as a matter of right. The appellants
have no right, title or interest over the land in question. The
appellants also cannot claim tehbazari rights over any particular
piece of land. Tehbazari right is merely a license for carrying out a
particular trade at a particular site and can be revoked/modified at
any time. The license has been revoked/modified by the MCDs as per
their policy decision. The appellants do not have any right to
perpetual possession over the land in question and having accepted
tehbazari rights, they have acquiesced to the ownership of MCDs to
the properties in question in view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence
Act. The appellants are neither the owners of the land nor have any
document to show permissible use by any authority whatsoever.
Since there is no malafide or arbitrariness or irrationality or
illegality in the policy, it is not subject to interference by the Courts.
The appellants cannot claim any right to public land. The properties
in question have been retrieved in most of the cases by sealing and
the appellants have not challenged the final order hence no relief
can be granted to them.
…
18. In view of the aforesaid, discussion the Policy dated July 06, 2011
is upheld…”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. The Division Bench has categorically held that tehbazari rights are
merely in the nature of a licence and do not confer any vested, proprietary or
perpetual right upon the allottee over the public land in question. It has
further been held that the respondent/MCD is competent to modify, revoke
or withdraw such licence in terms of its policy decisions and no allottee can
claim continued occupation of a particular site as a matter of right.
15. It is a settled position of law that tehbazari is only in the nature of a
temporary license which is granted in favour of a person. It does not create
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 7 of 9

any right, title or interest in the subject property.
16. At best, the petitioner has a right to be considered for the
grant/renewal of the prevalent policy adopted by MCD. On account of the
subsequent formulation of Policy in 2011, the aforesaid permission was
withdrawn and the petitioner was offered a tehbazari site of 7x5 feet.
th
17. Once the Policy dated 6 July, 2011 has been upheld by this Court as
well as by the Division Bench, no separate challenge to the withdrawal of
permission for change of trade can survive.
18. In the present case, the original allotment in favour of the petitioner
was admittedly for running a coal depot and the subsequent permission was
th
granted by MCD on 30 October, 1998, to the petitioner for trading in
hardware, paint and sanitary goods instead of coal depots at the site.
However, it cannot be said that permission was on a permanent basis or
created any indefeasible rights in favour of the petitioner to permanently run
the site for the purposes of trading in hardware, paints and sanitary goods.
19. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent/MCD, it
has been stated that there is no justification for the continuation of any other
private business like trading of hardware, paints and sanitary goods, as in the
present case, on public land. The petitioner has been occupying the said land
for his commercial interest at the cost of the public exchequer. The purpose
of tehbazari cannot be furtherance of the commercial interest of a few
individuals. The petitioner is free to run his business from the alternative
tehbazari site or from a private land, but the petitioner cannot lay any claim
to run his private business from public land measuring 200 sq. yds. on
tehbazari basis.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 8 of 9

20. In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that
there is nothing unlawful or arbitrary in the MCD’s decision to cancel the
tehbazari allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has also failed to
demonstrate any mala fides or discriminatory application of the aforesaid
Policy, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
21. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and
the same is dismissed.
22. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in occupation of this
site since 1998, and would have to arrange an alternate site for running his
business, this Court deems it fit that an appropriate time has to be given to
the petitioner to arrange for an alternate site.
23. Counsel for the petitioner submits that six (6) months’ time be given
to the petitioner to vacate the said premises.
24. In my considered view, it would be in the interest of justice if five (5)
months’ time is given to the petitioner to vacate the subject site.
25. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before this
Court within ten (10) days from today, stating that he would vacate the
subject premises within five (5) months from today, the petitioner is granted
five (5) months’ time to vacate the said premises.
AMIT BANSAL, J
MAY 13, 2026
Rzu
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:18.05.2026
13:39:50
W.P.(C) 2241/2012 Page 9 of 9