Tehbazari Rights Are Revocable Licenses Conferring No Vested Proprietary Interest in Public Land

In 1970, the MCD allotted a tehbazari site (approx. 200 sq. yds.) at Ashok Nagar to the petitioner’s father for a coal depot

The license was transferred to the petitioner in 1979

Following a 1994 ban on coal distribution in Delhi, the MCD permitted the petitioner to change the trade to hardware, paints, and sanitary goods in 1998

On July 6, 2011, the MCD adopted a new comprehensive policy for coal depot sites, stipulating that since coal distribution had ceased, large tehbazari plots would be retrieved and allottees offered smaller 7'x5' alternative sites

Consequently, on November 17, 2011, the MCD issued the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s tehbazari and withdrawing the 1998 trade-change permission

The petitioner challenged this cancellation via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner has a vested or perpetual right to occupy public land under a tehbazari license after the underlying policy is modified

2. Whether the MCD’s withdrawal of the 1998 permission for change of trade was arbitrary or unlawful in light of the 2011 Policy

the legal principle that a tehbazari right is merely a license and not a conferment of title or an interest in the subject property

the Division Bench precedent in Rajiv Narula v. GNCTD and Ors. (LPA 542/2015), which upheld the MCD’s 2011 Policy and established that licenses are temporary permissions capable of being revoked or modified in public interest

the principle that the government is competent to withdraw permissions for private commercial use of public land to serve public utility purposes

The court reasoned that tehbazari rights are inherently temporary and do not create indefeasible proprietary rights

Although the petitioner was granted permission to change his trade in 1998, the court observed that this permission was not permanent and could not override subsequent policy changes aimed at retrieving large tracts of public land

The court noted that the 2011 Policy had already been judicially upheld by a Division Bench, meaning the petitioner could not validly challenge the revocation of his license when the same was done in accordance with said policy

The court further emphasized that public land cannot be used indefinitely for "profitable businesses" by individuals at the cost of the public exchequer, and the offer of an alternative 7'x5' site satisfied the requirement of balancing livelihood with public interest

No mala fides or discrimination was found in the MCD’s application of the uniform policy to the petitioner

The court affirmed that the petitioner has no vested right to occupy the specific site and must comply with the 2011 Policy

acknowledging the petitioner's long-standing occupation since 1998, the court granted the petitioner five months to vacate the premises, subject to filing a formal undertaking within ten days