http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: GAINDA RAM AND ORS.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.C.D. TOWN HALL AND ORS.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/05/1993

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (3) 704        1993 SCC  (3) 178  JT 1993 (3)   396        1993 SCALE  (2)893

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950: Articles  14, 19 (1) (g) and  21-Squatters/hawkers-Grant  of Tehbazari  Permission  by Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi- Scheme  evolved  by  the Corporation on  the  directions  of Supreme Court--Clarifications and further directions given. Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section-420-Grant of Tehbazari Permission to squatters/hawk- ers--Scheme   formulated  as  directed  by  Supreme   Court- Clarifications and further directions issued.

HEADNOTE: Certain guidelines were issued by this Court in Saudan 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 procedures  to  be followed  in the implementation of the  Scheme.   Aggrieved, the  petitioner squatters/hawkers approached this Court  for appropriate  directions on their petitions pending  in  this Court. Disposing  of the cases, and clarifying directions 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 705 warranted. (708-F-G) 1.2In the name of the procedure set out by the M.C.D.,  they would not be permitted to change the nature of the tehbazari

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

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 combat the 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 remand  remove it when they leave the place after business hours.(709C-D) 1.3   Having regard to the segment of the society  to  which many  of  the squatters/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 determine whether or not such squatters/hawkers had in  fact paid  the  tehbazari.   Therefore, option is  given  to  the squattest hawkers who face this difficulty, to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 3000 in four quarterly installments of Rs. 750  each. The  first installment will be paid within one  month  after the receipt of the order or intimation of allotment from the M.C.D. The subsequent installments will be paid every  three months thereafter.  If any squatter/ hawker commits  default in  the payment of the installments, his allotment  will  be table to be cancelled one month after a reminder is sent  to him  and the next person in the order of seniority  will  he allotted that space. (709-F-H) 1.4By  way of a special consideration, time of one month  is granted  to such claimants whose cases were pending  on  the date  of decision in Saudan Singh’s case, but who  have  not filed formal claims, to file their claims before the  M.C.D. Committee  with  all accompaniments  and  particulars.   The M.C.D. Committee will examine such claims.  The claims to be filed  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 production of a certified copy. (710-C-E) 1.5These   directions   would  apply  to   claims   of   all squatters/hawkers who fall in the four categories enumerated in  Saudan  Singh,  and others have no right  as  they  fall outside the scheme and are not entitled to any protection. 706 Since all those who claim to be covered under the scheme and whose  claims  are awaiting scrutiny are protected  by  this order,  all  the writ petitions/ appeals/SLPs  Suits,  etc., pending  in  this Court/the High Court of Delhi  and  Courts subordinate  to  it shall stand  terminated  forthwith.   No further  litigation by or on behalf of  any  squatter/hawker will  be entertained but if the M.C.D. violates any part  of this order, the concerned party governed by this order  will be  entitled  to file an I.A. for directions.   The  interim stay orders granted in those cases shall also stand vacated. The  M.C.D. will, however, maintain the status quo till  the verification is completed. (710-F-H, 712-A-B) Saudan Singh V.NDMC & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 458, relied on  and the directions given therein clarified. The Court observed that the M.C.D. would ensure that  future encroachments  do  not take place defeating  the  rights  of existing  squatters/hawkers governed under the  scheme,  and that  it would also protect the interest of the  shopkeepers as  they  too have a similar right under Article 21  of  the Constitution.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 1699 of 1987. Under Articles 32 of the Constitution of India.                             WITH Writ  Petition  (C) Nos. 1059/87, 324, 311, 841,  318,  315, 299,  334, 335, 457, 414, 435, 436, 438, 31, 157, 213,  215, 217,  188,809,441,483, 150, of 1990,616, 1065, 376 of  1989, 372/87,323/90,269/90,317/86,700/86,1096/87,435/89,479,  552, 837,  903,  1097  of 1987, 33/88, 228,  313,  125  of  1989, 627/88,  SLP  (C) No. 5127/90, WP (C) 475/87,  281,  909  of 1987, 51/88, SLP (C) 4501/87, WP(C) 394, 1158 of 1989,  494, 488, 322, 500, 712 of 1990, 264/86, 752, 798, 791, 793, 790, 776  of 1990, 398/89, 984 of 1990, 719, 1301, 349  of  1987, 138,  418, 1263, 964 of 1989, 11096-97/94, 1011, 752 of  88, SLP  (C) 12418/87, 501/87, 13156/86, CMP 1278 of 1987 in  WP 248/87,924/87,    1531/87,479/87,522/89,1042/89,109/     90, 131/90,  141/90, 146, 156, 157, 164,  180,  238,313,317,351, 359   of   1990,   I.A.  361  of  1990,   in   WP   360   of 1990,362,436,438,445,447,454,455,  457, 478, 483, 488,  494, 498,565,663,664,712,743,776,790,809,814,823,835,886,905,923, 940,944,985,  989,  995, 996, 1007, 1008,1009,  1010,  1049, 1097,1132,1125,    1161,    1180,    1185,    1186,     1187 ,1192,1194,1195,1212,1214,1231,1281,1295, 1294, 1233,  1251, 1258,  1283,  127 1 of 1990, 1476, 313, 1316,  1251  of  the 1987,  321/86, 237/90, SLP (C) 6925/87, 14496/89,  WP  1001, 1004, 1007, 595, 747, 1146, 1156 of 1992, 7, 8, 19 of  1992, 13712-13 of 1984, 54, 62, 109 of 1992 15, 707 45, 137,144,146,145, 147,148, 180,221, 263, 267,347,348,401, 349,350,35  1, 352, 353, 355, 357, 372, 393, 520, 614,  629, 628,   755,   1055,1059,1060,1062,   1066,1117   of1991,1344 of1990,161/84,11096-97/84,134,216,362,401,348,  700,   1203, 1210,  1258, 1273, 1278, 1291, 1305, 1214 of 1987, 163,  434 of   1989,  897/89,1341/89,1436/86,1651,1754of   1986,12492- 541/84,1304/90,1472/87, 1126/87,479/87,138/90,1266/90,13712- 13/84,342,462,539,701,799,931,287 of 1990, 677/89, 168, 200, 217, 253,256,320,365, 374, 375,376of 1992, 20/91, 10 1, 136, 154,  272, 354, 387, 400, 425, 436, 1054 of 199 1,  SLP  (C) 3119/93. Govinda  Mukhoty, V.M. Tarkunde, Arun Jaitley V.C.  Mahajan, K.N.  Rai,  A.P.  Singh,  G.K.  Bansal,  P.H.  Parekh,  B.N. Agarwala, Ms. Simi Kumar, Ms. Sanriti Mishra, M.M.  Kashyap, Ms.  Meenakshi Arora, K.R. Nagaraja Ms. Sarla Chandra,  R.C. Kaushik, Satish Chandra Agarwal, L.K. Gupta, D.K. Gara,  Ms. Renu Gupta, P.Narsimhan, B.B. Tawakley, S.K. Sabharwal,  An- dan  Ghosh,  R.C.  Verma,  B.D.  Sharma,  A.K.  Sangh,   PK. Manohar,  A.P.  Mohanty, Bharat Sangal, Ms.  Lalita  Kaushik (N.P.),  Shree Pal Singh, N. Ganpathy, S.N. Bhatt, Ms.  Rani Jethmalani, S.K. Bisaria, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. Rani Chabra,  Uma Datta,  Shakil  Ahmed, Anil Kumar Gupta  (11),  Ms.  Manjeet Chawla,  Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Indra Sawhney, L.K.  Pandey,  S. Sreenivasan,  Anis Suhrawardy, S.P. Tambwekar,  S.P.  Pandey for Pandey and Associates, A.S. Pundir, M.B. Lal & Co. Manoj Prasad,  J.P.  Verghese,  M.P. Raju,  Vishnu  Mathur,  Manoj Swarup,  Sandeep  Narain,  Shree Narain,  Ms.  P.  Gopinath, Ranjit  Kumar  R.K.  Maheshwari,  Vineet  Maheshwari,   V.B. Saharya for Saharya & Co., Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Bina Gupta, K.B.  Rohtagi  S.R.  Setia, K.K. Mohan,  S,K.   Nandy,  R.D. Upadhyay,  Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, S.M. Ashri, S.N. Sikka,  B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. A.  Suhashini, Sudersh  Menon, G.S. Chatterjee and M.C.  Dhingra  Advocates with them for the appearing parties.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

The Following Order of the Court was delivered In Saudan Singh v. NDMC & Ors, [1992] 2SCC 458 we laid  down certain   guidelines  in  paragraph  11  of   the   judgment concerning  squatters/hawkers carrying on business  activity in  the area within the administrative control of MCD.   The guidelines laid down were four in number, namely (1)  Persons who have been found squatting between 1970  and 1982  and  whose names are contained in  the  survey  report prepared  after  the survey conducted in 1982  will  receive first priority for grant of tehbazari permission subject  to the scrutiny of their claims; 708               (2)  Insofar  as casual  tehbazari  on  weekly               holidays, festivals/melas, etc., is concerned,               as  well  as  at the 67  weekly  bazars  held,               persons  availing  of the  said  benefit  will               continue  to be granted the casual  or  weekly               tehbazari;               (3)     Squatters     who     have     started               squatting/hawking in 1983 onwards and who were               not found on the date of survey would also  be               considered  for  grant of  open  tehbazari  of               6’x4’  subject to the production of  proof  of               continuous  squatting and proof  of  residence               and nationality.  Such squatters/hawkers would               be   granted   open   tehbazari   subject   to               availability  of  space  provided  they   have               cleared the dues of the MCD; and               (4)  Personal  who  do not,  fall  within  the               aforesaid three categories would be  permitted               to  apply for hawking licences  under  section               420  of the Delhi Municipal  Corporation  Act,               1957   and   their   applications   would   be               considered  on  merit for permission  to  hawk               not  squat by moving in specified  areas  with               their goods on their heads or on cycles.  They               will   be   entitled  to   hawk   with   their               goods,anywhere in the zone in respect of which               they   have  not  been  granted   a   licence.               However,  such permission will be  subject  to               any  restrictions that may be imposed  by  the               residential    associations    of    different               colonies." Pursuant  to  the  said guidelines, the  MCD  issued  public notices in newspapers and through handbills, posters,  etc., between  the months of June and August, 1992.  In regard  to the   category   of  hawkers/squatters  mentioned   in   the guidelines,  the MCD has undertaken an exercise to  complete the scrutiny expeditiously.  In regard to  hawkers/squatters falling  under category (1), the MCD has divided  them  into two  classes,  namely,  those who  possess  survey-  report- receipt  dated  23.12.82 and those who do not  possess  that receipt but are in a position to tender evidence or proof of their  squatting from 1970 to 1982.  It is stated  that  the latter   category  will  stand  and  will  be  treated   and considered after the former.  We would like to make it clear that   they   all   belong  to   one   category   and   this subclassification is not warranted. Even in regard to those who do not possess the survey report receipt  dated 23. 12. 82 but tender satisfactory  proof  in regard  to  their  squatting from 1970  to  1982  should  be considered  along with those who possess the receipt and  be arranged  in the order of their respective seniorities.   We do not think that the sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

709 classification is necessary. The    MCD    has    also    stated    that    no    covered tehbazari/kiosks/stalls/shops  will be given to  any  person under  the present scheme and only open to sky tehbazari  on area  admeasuring  6’x4’  should be  permitted  to  eligible squatters   and   the  seniority  list  will   be   prepared accordingly  on  submission  of  proof.   Counsel  for   the squatters/hawkers    contended    that    earlier    covered tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls was permitted to some of  them like Jai Jawan Stores, etc., and if by this procedure it  is intended  to disturb them that should not be permitted.   We read  this  procedure only to mean that those who  have  not been expressly given such facility will not be given covered tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls, etc., under the scheme  which is  being flnalised.  We would like to clarify that  in  the name of the procedure set out by the MCD, which they propose follow  to finalise claims, they would not be  permitted  to change  the nature of the tehbazari of those, who have  been expressly      permitted      facility      of       covered tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls in the past but those who  are not given that facility will not be entitled to it.  We  may also clarify that temporary tarpaulin covers/umbrellas would not  fall within the expression ’covered  tehbazari  because these  would be necessary to combat the vagaries of  nature. They  will, however, be liable to be evicted if  under  this pretext  they try to put up a semi-permanent cover the  area on  which  they are permitted to squat.  Byway  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 therein  and  remove  it when they  leave  the  place  after business hours. Under  category  (3) -in paragraph 1 1 of the  Judgment,  we have   in   the   concluding   lines   stated   that    such squatters/hawkers would be granted open tehbazari subject to availability of space provided they have cleared the dues of the  MCD.   Counsel  submitted  that  this  requirement   of clearing  the  dues is likely to  cause  avoidable  Hardship since the period covered would be almost of a decade and  at times more.  Many of the squatters/.hawkers having regard to the  segment  of society to which they belong may  not  have retained  the  receipts  and  it  would  also  be  well-nigh impossible for the MCD to verify their records and determine whether or not such. squatters/hawkers had in fact paid  the tehbazari.  We see considerable force in this submission and we,  therefore, provide an option to the  squatters/hawkers, who  face this difficulty to pay a lump sum of Rs. 3,000  in four  quarterly  instalments  of Rs. 750  each.   The  first instalment  will be paid within one month after the  receipt of  the order or intimation of allotment from the MCD.   The subsequent  instalments  will  be paid  every  three  months thereafter.   If any squatter/ hawker commits a  default  in the payment of the instalments, his allotment will be liable to  be cancelled one month after a reminder is sent  to  him and  the  next  person in the order  of  seniority  will  be allotted that space. 710 Lastly,    it   was   submitted   by   counsel    for    the squatters/hawkers  that some of them who had  already  filed petitions/appeals  in  this Court or in the  High  Court  or suits in the Trial Courts prior to the date of this  Court’s judgment  in Saudan Singh dated 13th March, 1992 and who  on that account bona fide thought that it was not necessary  to make a formal application to the Committee appointed for the purpose  of scrutinising and verifying their claims, may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

permitted to do so.  Although we are generally reluctant  to extend   the  time  but  having  regard  to   the   bonafide misunderstanding  pointed  out by counsel on behalf  of  the squatters/hawkers, we put it to the learned counsel for  the MCD  if the MCD would have no objection to the extension  of time  and he fairly stated that he would have  no  objection provided   the   facility   is  limited   to   those   whose petitions/appeals/suits were pending in any of the courts on 13th  March,  1992.  By Way of a  special  consideration  we grant time of one month from today to such claimants to file their   claims   before   the   MCD   Committee   with   all accompaniments  and  particulars.  The  MCD  Committee  will examine such claims.  The claims to be filed need not be  in any prescribed form, but may furnish the particulars and  be accompanied with the copy of the petition/ appeal suit  with their  numbers  which they claim were pending on  or  before 13th  March,  1992,  duly attested as a  true  copy  by  the Advocate for the party.  If there is any doubt, MCD will  be at  liberty  to  demand from that party  the  production  of a  certified copy.  We would expect the MCD to complete  the process of verification as early as possible.  The procedure indicated by MCD, except for the modifications which we have made  hereinabove, may be followed.  Mr.  Maheshwari  states that  the  endeavour  of the MCD would be  to  complete  the verification  within four months from today.  We think  that this is a reasonable period.  Let it be so done. The   directions   given  hereinabove   being   of   general application  would apply to claims of all  squatters/hawkers who fall within the categories enumerated in paragraph 11 of Saudan  Singh’s judgment dated 13th March, 1992.  Those  who do  not fall in any one of the said four categories have  no right  as they fall outside the scheme and are not  entitled to any protection.  Since all those who claim to be  covered under the scheme and whose claims are awaiting scrutiny  are protected  by  this  order,  we  see  no  reason  why  their petitions/appeals/suits, etc., should be kept pending.   We, therefore,  propose  to  dispose  them  of  by  this  order. Intimation  of this order will be sent to the  Registrar  of the  High  Court of Delhi who will immediately  apprise  the Judges  of  the subordinate judiciary for  compliance.   The Registrar will ensure compliance.  With these  observations, all the writ petitions/ appeals/SLPs/suits, etc., pending in this Court/the High Court of Delhi and Courts subordinate to it shall stand terminated by this forthwith.  In other words no  civil  litigation  commenced  by or  on  behalf  of  the squatters/hawkers  pending  in  the Courts  of  Delhi  shall survive.   No  further  litigation by or on  behalf  of  any squatter/ hawker will be entertained but if the MCD violates any part of this order the 711 concerned  party governed by this order will be entitled  to file  an  I.A.  for directions.   The  interim  stay  orders granted  in those cases shall also stand vacated.   The  MCD will, however, maintain the status quo till the verification is  completed and only in regard to those  hawkers/squatters whose  claim  are negatived, will it be open to the  MCD  to take  action for their eviction ten days after the claim  is rejected.    The   MCD   will  also   ensure   that   future encroachments  do  not take place defeating  the  rights  of existing  squatters/hawkers governed under the  scheme.   It will  also protect the interest of the shop-keepers as  they too   have  a  similar  right  under  Article  21   of   the Constitution.  No order as to costs in all cases. G.N.                            Petitions disposed of.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

712