Reserved category municipal allotments cannot be transferred or regularized in favor of general category candidates.

The Petitioner, an illiterate woman from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, was allotted Shop No. 15, Old R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi, by the NDMC (Respondent No. 1) in 1991-92 under the reserved SC category

Petitioner claims she was lured into a partnership with Respondent No. 2 (a general category individual) and signed a partnership deed on 24.03.1992, handing over possession

Respondent No. 2 subsequently sought transfer of the allotment into his name. Between 1992 and 2007, NDMC issued show-cause notices for subletting and violations, eventually cancelling the allotment in 2007 and initiating eviction proceedings under the PPA, 1971

However, these proceedings were withdrawn in 2009 after Respondent No. 2 claimed violations were removed

The Petitioner filed this writ seeking to challenge the transfer/regularization in favor of Respondent No. 2.

NDMC Policy as articulated in Resolution No. 6 dated 18th March, 1999, which explicitly prohibits the transfer of "Reserved category units" to "General category" candidates

Nathia Devi v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 3830), which established that units reserved for SC/ST categories cannot be transferred via partnership or other methods to general category individuals, and that any partnership deed entered into by an original licensee in violation of licence terms (prohibiting the introduction of partners or parting with possession) is illegal and confers no rights upon the transferee

The Court observed that the NDMC itself admitted in its counter-affidavit that under Clause 3(i) of Resolution No. 6, the shop in question—allotted specifically under the SC category—cannot be transferred to a non-SC/ST person

Following the reasoning in Nathia Devi, the Court noted that even if a partnership was formed, it constituted a violation of the original license terms which forbade the licensee from transferring possession or introducing partners

Respondent No. 2’s possession and attempts at regularization were contrary to the NDMC’s own policy. However, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2 had been in possession since 1992 and the Petitioner had not challenged this for nearly 18 years

While the legal policy prevents the transfer of the allotment, the Court determined that a writ petition is not the appropriate vehicle to adjudicate the private dispute regarding the physical possession of the property

The Court declined to direct the restoration of possession to the Petitioner, holding that such relief cannot be granted against a private party under Article 226. The writ petition was disposed of with the clarification that the Petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate civil proceedings for possession or other permissible legal reliefs