LexGAINDA RAM AND ORS. ETC. versus M.C.D. TOWN HALL AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
GAINDA RAM AND ORS. ETC.
v.
M.C.D. TOWN HALL AND ORS. ETC.
MAY 12.1993
{A.M. AHMADI AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.]
Constitwion of India, 1950 ~·
Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) an~ 21-Squatterslhawkers-Grant of Tehbazari
Permission by Municipal Corpo.ration of Delhi-Scheme evolved by the Corpo-
C
ration on the directions ofSupreine Court- Clarifications and further directions
given.
Delhi Municipal Corporation Acr, 1957:
Section420-GrantofTehbazariPermissiontosquauers/hawkers-Scheme
fommlated as directed by Supreme Court-Clarifications and further directions
D
issued.
E
F
G
H
Certain guidelines were issued bythisCourtinSaUdan Singh v.N.D.M.C.
& Ors. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 243 in respect of the squatters/hawkers carrying on
business ·activity in the area under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Pursuant to the said guidelines, the respondent M.C.D. evolved a Scheme and
undertook an exercise to complete the scrutiny of the claims of the squatters/
hawkers for· grant of tehbazari permission by which it subclassified the
persons found squatting between 1970 and 1982, and laid down the proce-
dures to be followed in the implementation of the Scheme. Aggrieved, the
petitioner squatters/hawkers approached this Court for appropriate direc-
tions on their petitions pending in this Court.
Disposing of the cases, and clarifying d_irections given in Saudan Singh
and giving further directions, this Court,
HELD : 1.1. In regard to persons who have been found squatting
between 1970 and 1982 and whose names were contained in the Survey
Report, and who were to receive first priority as per the guidelines issued, the
M.C.D. divided them into two classes viz., those who possessed the survey-
report-receipt and those who did not posses the receipt but could tender
evidence or proof of squatting from 1970 to 1982. According to M.C.D. the
latter category would be considered after the former. It is made clear that
both the classes belong to one• category and the sub-classification is not
704
;'·
GAINDA RAM v. M.C.D.
705
warranted. (708-F-G)
1.2 In the name of the procedure set out by theM.C.D.,they would not
be permitted to change the nature of the tehbazari of those who have been
expressly permitted facility of covered the tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls in the
past but those who are not given that facility will not be entitled to it.
Temporary tarpaulin covers/umbrellas would not fall within the expression
'covered tehbazari' because these would be necessary to combatthe vagaries
of nature. They will, however, be liable to be evicted if under this pretext they
try to put up a semi-permanent cover over the area on which they are .
permitted to squat. By way of abundant caution and to avoid harassment it
would be desirable for them to put up only a temporary cover to beat the sun
or the rain and remo\•e it wh~n they leave the place after business hours. (709-
C-D)
/
1.3 Having regard to the segment of the society to which many of the
squa :~.ers/hawkers belong, they may not have retained the tehbazari receipts .
and it would also be well-nigh impossible for the M.C.D. to verify their
records and determi!Je whether or not such squatters/hawkers had in fact
paid the tebbazari. Therefore, option is given to the squatters/hawkers who
face this difficulty, to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 3000 in four quarterly instalments
of Rs. 75i0 each. The first instalment will be paid within one month after the
receipt of the order or intimation of allotment from the M.C.D. The subse-
quent instalments will be paid every three months thereafter. If any squatter/
hawf<er commits default in the payment of the instalments, his allotment will
be liable to be cancelled one month after a reminder is sentto him and the next
petson in the order of seniority will he allotted that space. (709-F-H)
1.4 By way ofa special consideration, time of one month is granted to
such claimants whose cases were· pending on the date of decision in Saud.an
Singh 's case, but who have not fded formal claims, to fde their claims before
· theM.C.D. Committee with all accompaniments and particulars. The M.C.D.
Committee will examine such claims. The claims to be fded need not be in any
prescribed form, but may furnish the particulars along with the copy of their
petition/appeal/suit pending on or before 13th March, 1992, duly attested by
the.Advocate for the party. In case of doubt, M.C.D. will be at liberty to
demand from that party the proExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.