Authored by: Susmita Smrutirekha
Date of judgement: 27 September, 2021
Bench: Division Bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2021 SCC Online SC 803
Brief overview of the case:
This case deals with an appeal made by New Delhi Municipal Council to the Supreme Court of India, after the High Court held that the Municipal Council could not enforce different policies on lands transferred to it by the government and the lands owned by it.
Background of the case:
In the subsequent case of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Ganga Devi & Anr[1]., the respondent was an occupant of a stall located in Baba Kharag Singh Marg, for which she was issued a show cause notice for alleged sub-letting and unauthorized construction. The occupant claimed that she was the owner of the property and stated that the said shop was allotted to one Maheshi Dhoundiyal, and it was sublet to the occupant in the year 1999 which was later transferred to her in the year 2000.
The occupant-respondent depended upon a Circular which was issued on Date 25th July1996 and also on a policy which was approved by the Government in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 31st August 2000 which would have granted ownership rights to the occupants of the shops of 14 specified markets.
On the contrary an order was passed by the Estate Office, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi, for the eviction of the allottee of the stall. Whereas, the occupant-respondent had purchased the stall in question from the said allottee. Aggrieved from this the occupant appealed against the eviction notice to the Additional District Judge but the said appeal was dismissed.
Occupant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi, the learned Single Judge Bench held that only because the market in query i.e., Baba Kharag Singh Marg Market had been handed over to New Delhi Municipal Council with respect to the notification dated 24th March 2006, it did not mean that the policy regarding substitution/mutation of ownership for the said market could be different from all the other markets that are adopted and managed by the Council. And the High Court held that the Council could not treat both markets differently and the occupant was held to be entitled to regularization of allotment in accordance with the policy and was directed to the council to transfer the allotment in the favor of occupant within 2 months.
Issues:
1)Whether the allottees of the said market be given the right of ownership?
2)Whether the order passed by High Court admissible?
3)Whether the Municipal council has the authority to evacuate the allotted stalls?
4)Whether the Municipal Council of Delhi is the licensee or owner of the land transferred by the Government?
Arguments:
Following are the contentions made by both parties:
Contention by respondent-
1.The counsel on behalf of respondent stated that on 24th March 2006, the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India had transferred some markets to the Council and Municipal Corporation of Delhi which would continue from 1st April 2006 and that the term of the policy stated the regularization/restoration of allotment might also be followed by the local bodies.
2.He argued that on date 25th July 1996, the Government of India permitted regulation of shops, stalls, flats which came into the occupation of the respective locations on or before 20th October 1989.
3.It was also argued by the counsel that the advertisement which was published by the Government of India in the Hindustan Times on 6th August 2001 provided ownership rights to the shopkeepers of 12 markets.
Contention by appellant-
1.Counsel for the appellant argued that the license deed which was performed in the year 1998 barred leasing of premises and of partnership to carry on the business, which was done between the occupant and the predecessor of the occupant, so it was an utter violation of terms of the license.
2.He argued that the notice published on 6th August 2001 was not valid for the stalls of Baba Kharg Singh Marg market and that the decision of the cabinet of date 20th October 1989 had ceased to operate.
3.Counsel argued that the public notice which was published in The Hindustan Times dated 6th August 2001 was in respect of 14 markets and it didn’t include the market of Baba Kharag Singh Marg.
4.It was also submitted that the occupant was not in ownership of the said property on or before 20th October 1989 and the public notice dated 6th August 2001 specified that the earlier decisions of the cabinet shall cease to operate.
Explanation:
The Supreme Court observed that the letters dated 21st May 2008 and 8th July 2008 in which Director of Estates had communicated to the Council stating all the power to manage the markets shall be handed to Council/Municipal corporation of Delhi and that the Council may take appropriate action in this case by themselves, was interdepartmental statement and not any policy or circular that was meant for public. And those interdepartmental statements are not orders of Union or of Council.
It was observed that the occupant clearly violated the terms of license, as the partnership was performed, which ended within 2 months.
It stated that only the rights of Government of India in running the markets as a lessor or licensee was transferred to the council and not the land or the building, i.e., there was no transfer of rights to the council, and it was only to manage the markets as an agent of the Union and not as an owner. It was held that the markets transferred by the Government of India to the Council have to be dealt independently and distinctly than the other properties owned by the council.
Verdict:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the High Court are erroneous in law and set it aside. And reinstated the order of eviction which was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.
Good Work Susmita!🙌