Delhi High Court
Ram Chander Yadav vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 22 November, 2016
$~01.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment dated 22nd November, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 8081/2016
RAM CHANDER YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.N.K. Sahoo, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.H. Peechara, Mr.Mananjay K.
Mishra, Ms.Shailja Nanda Mishra and
Mr.Vidhi Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash the order dated
22.3.2016 passed by Director (Enforcement), NDMC, whereby the
representation of the petitioner dated 1.6.2015 was rejected. It may be
noticed that the petitioner had filed the aforestated representation
pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court
in a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated
19.2.2015 passed by the respondent, whereby the tehbazari site
originally allotted to late Sh.Shyam Lal was transferred in the name of
his wife, Smt.Kashmiri Devi.
2. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition, are
that pursuant to the order no.112 dated 14.9.2009 issued by Chaturvedi
Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court of India, the tehbazari site
i.e. 134-T-3, A Block, Connaught Place, Near Oriental Bank of
Commerce, was allotted to late Sh.Shyam Lal on 9.3.2000 on
temporary and month-to-month basis for the purpose of squatting at the
allotted space on tehbazari permission. The said allotment of tehbazari
site in favour of late Sh.Shyam Lal was made subject to the condition
that 'tehbazari permission shall be personal to the grantee and it shall
not be shared or transferred to anyone in any manner'. After the death
of late Sh.Shyam Lal, on 19.11.2004 his wife, Smt.Kashmiri Devi, had
requested the respondent to transfer the aforesaid tehbazari site,
verified by Thareja Committee, in her favour, on legal heir basis. In
the meantime, the petitioner herein filed W.P.(C) 1113/2014 in the
Delhi High Court seeking transfer of the aforesaid tehbazari site in his
name on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Promissory Note,
Will and Agreement to Sell executed in favour of the petitioner by late
Sh.Shyam Lal way back in the year 2004. After the fact of illegal
transfer of the aforestated tehbazari in favour of the petitioner by late
Sh.Shyam Lal came to the knowledge of the respondent, a letter was
sent to the Area Inspector to furnish status report in respect of the said
tehbazari site. As per the status report of the Area Inspector, the
petitioner was not found squatting at the site. On 19.2.2015, the
respondent, after examining all the facts of the case found the transfer
of the said tehbazari site in favour of the petitioner as illegal and invalid
and passed an order transferring the aforesaid tehbazari site in favour of
the wife of late Sh.Shyam Lal being the legal heir of Late Sh. Shyam
Lal and in terms of its policy. The respondent had also observed that
the tehbazari site is not a leased property and the same is the property
of the respondent, which is required to be used by the allotted person
and can only be transferred in the name of the legal heir of the
deceased. Aggrieved by the order 19.2.2015, the petitioner filed
W.P.(C)5312/2015 in the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the
order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the respondent. While rejecting the
aforestated petition of the petitioner on 26.5.2015, the Court had
observed that it would be open for the petitioner to make a
representation to the respondent.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner has filed a complaint with the respondent
stating that since during his life time, late Sh.Shyam Lal had transferred
tehbazari rights with respect to the aforestated tehbazari site in favour
of the petitioner. The petitioner has represented that the tehbazari itself
should be cancelled. Counsel contends that the respondent has not
decided the said complaint of the petitioner till date. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had paid valuable consideration to late
Sh.Shyam Lal and, thus, the respondent has exceeded its jurisdiction by
transferring the tehbazari site in favour of his widow, whereas the
correct position of law is that the tehbazari site should have been
transferred in favour of the petitioner. Counsel also contends that the
complaint of the petitioner is pending and the only relief which he is
seeking today is that a direction be issued to the respondent to decide
his complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case any complaint
of the petitioner is pending with the respondent, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law and a reasoned order would be
passed within three months from the date a copy of the complaint is
supplied by the petitioner to the respondent, through the counsel for the
respondent. We make it clear that while deciding the complaint of the
petitioner, notice would be issued by the respondent to all the interested
parties.
5. Writ petition stands disposed of in view of above, as prayed by counsel
for the petitioner.
CM APPL. 33505/2016 (STAY)
6. Application stands disposed of in view of above.
G.S.SISTANI, J
VINOD GOEL, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2016
msr
