Mutation of a Tehbazari site cannot be granted absent eligibility, predecessor records, and actual vending activity.

The Petitioner sought mutation of Tehbazari Site No. 557, measuring 6 × 4 feet at 25, Sewa Nagar Nallah, New Delhi, and issuance of a relocation letter in respect of the site

He claimed to have purchased the site from its erstwhile holder, Chet Ram, on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will, all dated 12 March 2003

The Petitioner applied to the MCD for transfer of the site in his name on 15 February 2019 and claimed to have paid ₹65,000 as mutation fees

The MCD opposed the petition, relying on Veerwati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8113/2024, and contending that the claim was barred by delay and laches, that the Petitioner was not presently vending at the site, and that payment of mutation fees did not establish eligibility

The Court noted that the Petitioner had not produced the predecessor’s challans, while the MCD survey had already been completed and TVC-2 was in the process of being constituted

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to mutation of the Tehbazari site on the basis of the private documents allegedly executed by the erstwhile holder and the payment of mutation fees.

Whether the claimed transfer of the Tehbazari site could be recognised despite the Petitioner’s failure to establish the predecessor’s entitlement, the absence of proof of survey-based eligibility, and the alleged delay in approaching the Court.

Whether the Court could direct mutation or relocation when the relevant claim was required to be considered within the statutory vending framework by the concerned Town Vending Committee.

The Court relied on Veerwati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8113/2024, which held that mutation of a Tehbazari site could not be granted where the claimant’s connection with the site was stale and uncertain, although a claim for allotment of the same or an alternate site could be considered by the concerned Town Vending Committee at the appropriate stage

The Court also applied the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Sudhir Madan v. MCD, (2007) 15 SCC 497, that a Tehbazari allotment is not freely transferable; upon the death of an allottee, allotment may be made only to an eligible legal representative who actually carries on the vending activity, and the allottee cannot transfer the rights to another person

Mere payment of mutation fees does not confer a right to mutation where the claimant has not been surveyed or found eligible by the competent authority

Claims brought after substantial delay may also be rejected on the ground of delay and laches

The Court found that the Petitioner had not established a legally recognisable transfer of the Tehbazari site.

He failed to place on record the challans or other complete details demonstrating Chet Ram’s entitlement as the predecessor holder

The private instruments relied upon by the Petitioner could not override the restrictions governing transfer of Tehbazari rights under Sudhir Madan

Further, the Petitioner’s payment of ₹65,000 in 2019 did not establish eligibility, particularly when he had not been surveyed or found eligible and the MCD had stated that he was not vending at the site

In light of the completed MCD survey, the impending constitution of TVC-2, the absence of evidence regarding similarly situated persons, and the principles in Veerwati, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to order mutation

The alleged private transfer, unsupported by proof of the predecessor’s entitlement and by survey-based eligibility, could not confer enforceable rights, and the claim was additionally affected by delay and laches

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed