Transfers of tehbazari sites after 6 February 2007 are ineligible for mutation or relocation.

The Petitioner claimed rights in tehbazari site No. 3545, measuring 7×5 feet, situated at Bapu Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

The site was originally allotted to Shri Ram Rattan and was subsequently transferred in favour of Danish Ahmed.

The Petitioner and Danish Ahmed 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, pursuant to which he claimed ownership and tehbazari rights in the site.

Following demolition of the Bapu Market tehbazari sites in or around 2018, the MCD proposed relocation of eligible tehbazari holders to Mata Sundari Marg.

The Petitioner sought mutation of the original site and allotment of an alternate site at Mata Sundari Marg.

The MCD rejected his 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.

The MCD also relied upon the Scrutiny Committee’s decision that Danish Ahmed’s file was ineligible for allotment of an alternate site.

Danish Ahmed’s earlier writ petition seeking such allotment had been dismissed, with the Court noting gross concealment of facts.

Whether the Petitioner, having acquired the alleged tehbazari rights from Danish Ahmed through documents executed on 30 March 2016, was entitled to mutation or recognition of the change of hand?

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to relocation and allotment of an alternate tehbazari site at Mata Sundari Marg?

The Court applied the MCD Circular No. CL&EC/TTR/2009/532 dated 9 October 2009, which permitted mutation or recognition of transfer, sale, or change of hand only where the transaction had occurred before 6 February 2007.

The Circular was issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gainda Ram & Ors. v. MCD, W.P.(C) 1699/1987, decided on 9 April 2009, and governed the eligibility of tehbazari holders for recognition and relocation.

A transferee deriving rights through a post-cut-off transfer could not claim mutation or the consequential benefit of relocation.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s claimed acquisition from Danish Ahmed took place on 30 March 2016, well after the 6 February 2007 cut-off date prescribed by the MCD Circular.

The Petitioner was unable to establish that the transfer in his favour pre-dated the cut-off date, and the MCD had already formally rejected his mutation application on that basis.

The Court further noted that Danish Ahmed himself had been held ineligible for an alternate site in prior proceedings, and the Petitioner, claiming through him, could not obtain a better entitlement merely by relying on the alleged subsequent transfer.

Accordingly, the post-cut-off transfer disentitled the Petitioner both from mutation of the original site and from relocation to Mata Sundari Marg.

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