Post-cutoff transfers of tehbazari sites cannot be recognised for mutation or relocation.

The Petitioner claimed rights over tehbazari Site No. 3543, measuring 7×5 feet, at Bapu Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

The site was originally allotted to Inderjeet and was subsequently transferred in the name of Mohd. Asad by an MCD letter dated 27 February 2012.

Mohd. Asad and the Petitioner entered into a partnership on 15 March 2016, which was dissolved on 30 March 2016; on the same date, documents were executed in favour of the Petitioner, who claimed to have thereby acquired the site.

Following demolition of the Bapu Market tehbazari sites in 2018 for redevelopment, the Petitioner sought relocation and allotment of an alternative site at Mata Sundari Marg, as well as mutation of the original site in her favour.

The MCD rejected her mutation application on the ground that the change of hand occurred on 30 March 2016, after the applicable cut-off date of 6 February 2007 under its Circular dated 9 October 2009.

The Court also noted that Mohd. Asad’s earlier writ petition seeking an alternative site had been withdrawn, and that an order dated 2 February 2026 recorded that he was not entitled to such relief due to gross concealment of facts.

1. Whether the Petitioner, having acquired the alleged rights in the tehbazari site through a change of hand dated 30 March 2016, was entitled to mutation or recognition as the valid tehbazari holder.

2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to relocation and allotment of an alternative tehbazari site at Mata Sundari Marg following demolition of the Bapu Market sites.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the MCD Circular No. CL&EC/TTR/2009/532 dated 9 October 2009, issued in the context of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD, W.P.(C) 1699/1987, decided on 9 April 2009.

Under the circular, mutation, transfer, sale, or change of hand in respect of tehbazari sites was recognised only where the transfer had taken place before 6 February 2007; post-cut-off transfers were not liable to recognition.

Consequently, a claimant deriving rights through a post-6 February 2007 transaction could not claim mutation or consequential relocation benefits.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s claimed acquisition arose from documents executed by Mohd. Asad on 30 March 2016, substantially after the 6 February 2007 cut-off date prescribed by the MCD circular.

Although the Petitioner relied on the fact that the MCD had earlier recorded a transfer from Inderjeet to Mohd. Asad in 2012, she could not establish that the underlying transfer in favour of Mohd. Asad had occurred before the cut-off date; indeed, no date of that transfer document was provided by her counsel.

The subsequent change of hand in favour of the Petitioner was expressly dated 30 March 2016 and had already been rejected by the MCD pursuant to the relevant committee recommendations and approval.

The Court also took note of the adverse position concerning Mohd. Asad in the earlier proceedings, but its decisive reasoning was that the Petitioner’s post-cut-off acquisition was not recognisable under the governing circular.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.