Facts
The Petitioner sought directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to update the registered mobile number and identity proof relating to Tehbazari Site No. 13350, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, to reflect his credentials.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2He claimed to have acquired rights in the site through an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, possession letter and Will executed in January 2010, along with two other persons.
Source reference: p.1, para. 3His request to the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, for updating his credentials allegedly received no action.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4He subsequently complained that Ms. Naz Khan had illegally registered her name and mobile number in respect of the site and that MCD was accepting rent from her.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 5–6Issues
Whether the Petitioner was entitled to have his mobile number and identity proof updated in MCD records in respect of the Tehbazari site on the basis of transfer documents executed in 2010.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 2–7Whether a transfer of Tehbazari rights effected after 6 February 2007 could be recognised or acted upon by MCD.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 8–9Law Applied
The Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Patri Vyapar Mandal Delhi (Regd.) v. MCD Town Hall & Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 1699/1987, decided on 9 April 2009, which held that transfers or changes of hands in Tehbazari/vending sites made up to 6 February 2007 could be considered, whereas transfers made after that date were illegal and could result in eviction.
Source reference: p.2, para. 8The Court also relied on MCD Circular No. CL&EC/TTR/2009/532 dated 9 October 2009, which implemented the cut-off date and provided that post-6 February 2007 transfers would not be recognised and that eviction proceedings could be initiated against unauthorised occupants.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, para. 9Reasoning
The Petitioner’s claim was founded on documents executed in January 2010, which were subsequent to the Supreme Court-prescribed cut-off date of 6 February 2007.
Source reference: p.5, para. 10Under the binding rule laid down in Patri Vyapar Mandal and clarified through the MCD Circular, such a post-cut-off transfer could not be recognised as a valid transfer of Tehbazari rights.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 8–10Consequently, the Court held that the Petitioner could not obtain a direction requiring MCD to update its records on the basis of those documents, irrespective of his allegations concerning Ms. Naz Khan’s registration or MCD’s acceptance of rent.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 8–10Holding
The Court held that the Petitioner was not entitled to updation of his mobile number or identity proof because the alleged transfer documents were executed in 2010, after the legally prescribed cut-off date of 6 February 2007.
The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: p.6, para. 11Original Court PDF
Avdhesh KumarvsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
