Tehbazari rights cannot be mutated based on private transfer absent eligible allottee status.

The Petitioner sought mutation of Tehbazari Site No. 583, measuring 6 × 4 feet at Sewa Nagar Nallah, New Delhi, and issuance of a relocation letter in his favour.

He claimed to have purchased the site from Kishan Chand on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will, all dated 10 September 2003.

He applied to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) for transfer of the site in 2019 and claimed to have paid ₹65,000 as mutation fee.

The MCD opposed the petition, relying on Veerwati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, stating that the alleged transfer could not confer enforceable rights, that the claim was belated, and that the Petitioner was not presently vending at the site.

The MCD further submitted that the Petitioner had not been surveyed or found eligible and that the survey had been completed while TVC-II was in the process of being constituted.

Whether the Tehbazari site could be mutated in the Petitioner’s favour on the basis of the private documents executed by the alleged predecessor and payment of mutation fee.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to a relocation letter or consideration for allotment of the same or an alternate Tehbazari site.

Whether the petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches and the Petitioner’s failure to establish eligibility or actual vending activity.

The Court relied on Veerwati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 8113/2024, where mutation was declined in circumstances involving a long-delayed claim based on an alleged purchase of a Tehbazari site, while leaving the claimant’s request for allotment of the same or an alternate site to be considered by the concerned Town Vending Committee.

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

Payment of mutation fee, by itself, does not confer a right where the claimant has not been surveyed and found eligible.

The Court found that the Petitioner had failed to produce the relevant challans or other complete records of Kishan Chand, the alleged original holder of the site, and had not established a lawful or permissible transfer.

The private documents relied upon by the Petitioner could not override the restriction against transfer of Tehbazari rights recognised in Sudhir Madan.

The Court also considered the substantial delay between the alleged purchase in 2003 and institution of the writ petition in 2026, as well as the MCD’s submission that the Petitioner was not presently vending at the site.

In view of the completed survey, the forthcoming constitution of TVC-II, the absence of evidence concerning similarly situated persons, and the incomplete particulars of the predecessor, the Court held that mutation could not be directed.

Following Veerwati and Sudhir Madan, it held that the alleged private transfer and payment of ₹65,000 as mutation fee did not create an enforceable right to mutation, particularly in the absence of proof of eligibility and lawful succession or transfer.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.