Holding

All squatters/hawkers falling within the four categories enumerated in Saudan Singh are entitled to protection without sub‑classification, may pay Rs 3,000 in instalments, are not allowed permanent covers, and all pending suits are terminated.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the scheme devised by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) for granting Tehbazari (market) permission to squatters and hawkers under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Court clarified that the MCD's sub‑classification of squatters—those possessing a survey‑report receipt versus those providing other proof—was not permissible and that all squatters falling within the four categories identified in Saudan Singh v. NDMC must be treated as a single class. It approved a payment option of Rs 3,000 in four quarterly instalments for those unable to prove prior payment, and held that temporary tarpaulins or umbrellas do not constitute "covered Tehbazari" and may be removed after business hours. The Court ordered that all pending writ petitions, appeals, SLPs and suits by squatters/hawkers be terminated, with any further grievance to be pursued only through an application for interim relief against MCD. The judgment thus provided a comprehensive procedural framework for the implementation of the Tehbazari scheme and protected the rights of squatters under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Issues considered

Whether the MCD's sub‑classification of squatters based on possession of a survey‑report receipt is valid.
Whether squatters can be required to pay a lump‑sum instalment scheme for Tehbazari permission.
Whether temporary tarpaulins/umbrellas constitute "covered Tehbazari".
Whether pending litigations by squatters/hawkers should be terminated in view of the scheme.
Scope of protection afforded to squatters/hawkers under the guidelines of Saudan Singh v. NDMC.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 21
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 420

Subjects

squattershawkersTehbazari permissionDelhi Municipal CorporationArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)Article 21municipal lawencroachmentpayment instalmentstemporary structures

Judgment

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.

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
E 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.
F
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
G 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
H 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) A

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 ofcovered 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 B
'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 c
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 D
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. Ifany squatter/ E
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
F
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 G
the.Advocate for the party. In case of doubt, M.C.D. will be at liberty to
demand from that party the production ofa certified copy. (710-C~E)

1.5 These directions would apply to-claims ofall 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.. H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 litiga-
tion 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
B 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) 2SCC 458, relied on and the directions
given therein clarified.
c
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 shopkeep-
ers as they too have a similar right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
D
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 1699 of 1987.

Under Articles 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH
E Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1059/87, 324, 311, 841, 318, 315, 299, 334, 335, 457,
414, 435, 436, 438, 31, 157, 213, 215, 2·17, 188, 809, 441, 483, 150, of 1990, 616,
1065, 376of1989, 372/87, 323/90, 269/90, 317/86, 700/86, 1096/87, 435/89, 479,
552, 837, 903; 1097of1987, 33/88, 228, 313, 125of1989, 627/88, SLP (C) No.
5127/90, WP (C)475/87, 281, 909of1987, 51188, SLP (C)450l/87, WP(C) 394,
1158of1989, 494, 488, 322, 500, 712of1990, 264/86, 752, 798, 791, 793, 790,
F
776of1990, 398/89, 984of1990, 719, 1301, 348of1987, 1:38, 418, 1263, 964
of 1989, 11096-97/84, 1011, 752 of 88, SLP (C) 12418/87, 501187, 13156/86,
CMP 1278 of1987 in WP248/87, 924/87, 1531187,479/87,522/89, 1042/89, 109/
90, 131190, 141/90, 146, 156, 157, 164, 180; 238, 313, 317, 351, 359of1990, I.A.
361 of 1990, in WP 360of1990, 362, 436, 438, 445, 447, 454, 455, 457, 478, 483,
G 488,494,498,565,663,664,712,743,776,790,809,814,823,835,886,905923,
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, 1271of1990,1476,313, 1316, 1251 of the 1987,
321186, 237/90, SLP (C) 6925/87, 14496/89, WP 1001, 1004, 1007, 595, 747,
1146, 1156of1992, 7,8, l9ofl992, 13712-13ofl984,54,62, 109ofl99215,
H
GAINDA RAM v. M.C.D.

- 707

45, 137, 144, 146, 145, 147, 148, 180, 221, 263, 267,347, 348,401, 349, 350, 351, A
352,353,355,357,372,393,520,614,629,628, 755, 1055, 1059, 1060, 1062,
1066, 1117of1991, 1344of1990, 161/84, 11096-97/84, 134, 216, 362, 401, 348,
700.1203, 1210, 1258, 1273, 1278, 1291, 1305, 1214ofl987, 163,434of1989,
897/89, 1341/89, 1436/86, 1651, 1754ofl986, 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, 376of1992, 20/91, B
101, 136, 154, 272, 354, 387, 400, 425, 436, 1054 of 1991, SLP (C) 3119/93.

Govinda Mukhoty, V.M. Tarkunde, Arun Jaitley V.C. Mahajan, KN. Rai,
A.P. Singh, G.K. Bansal, P.H. Parekh, B.N. Agarwala, Ms. Simi Kumar, Ms.
Samriti Mishra, M.M. Kashyap, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, K.R. Nagaraja Ms. Sarla
c
Chandra, R.C. Kaushik, Satish Chandra Agarwal, L.K. Gupta, D.K. Garg, Ms.
Renu Gupta, P.Narsimhan, B.B. Tawakley, S.K. Sabharwal, Amlan Ghosh, R.C.
Verma, B.D. Sharma, A.K. Sanghi, P.K. 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 Kum'ar Gupta (IT), Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Indra D
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 E
Jaiswal, S.M. Ashri, S.N. Sikka, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. SushmaSuri,
->-- Ms. A. Suhashini, Sudersh Menon, G.S. Chatterjee and M.C. Dhingra Advocates
with them for the appearing parties.

The Following Order of the Court was delivered
F

In Saudan Singh v. NDMC & Ors, [1992] 2 SCC 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 :
G
~· (1) Persons who have been found squatting between 1970 and
1982 and whose names are contained in the survey report prepared
f'--
after the survey conducted in 1982 will receive first priorityfo_r grant
of tehbazari permission subject to the scrutiny of their claims;

H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A (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 t9 be granted the casual or
weekly tehbazari;

(3) Squatters who have started squatting/hawking in 1983 onwards
B 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
c the dues of the MCD; and

(4) Personal who do not fall within the oforesaid 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 -
D 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 colo-
nies."
E
Pursuant to the said guidelines, the MCD issued public notices in newspa-
pers and through hand bills, 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
F 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 proofof their squatting from 1970 to 1982. It is stated that the latter category will
stand and wm be treated and considered after the former. We would like to make
it clear that they all belong to '·one category and this sub-classification is not
G 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-
H
GAINDA .RAM v. M.C.D. · 709

classification is necessary. A

The MCD has also stated that no covered tehbazarilkiosks/stalls/shops will
be given to any ~rson 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 su~mission of proof. Counsel for the
squatters/hawkers contended tha~ earlier covered tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls B
was permitted to some of them likeJai 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 faciiity will not
be given covered tehbazari/kiosks/shops/stalls, etc., under the scheme which is
being finalised. We would like to clarify that in the name of the procedure set out c
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 t<? it. We may also clarify that
temporary tarpaulin covers/umbrellas would not fall within the expression 'cov-
ered tehbazari' because these would be necessary to combat the vagaries of nature. D
They will, however, be liable to be evicted. if under this pretext they try to put up
a semi-permanent coveroverlthe area on which they are permitted to squat..B y way
of abundant caution and to av?id harassment it would be desirable for them to put
up only a temporary cover to beat the sun or the rain and remove it when they leave
the place after business hours.
E
Under category (3)-in paragraph 1.1 of the Judgment, we have in the

- concludin& 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
F
and at times more. Many of the squatters/.hawkers having regard to the segment
of society to which they belong may nothaye 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 ~n four G
quarterly instalments of Rs: 750 each. The first instalment will be paid within one
month after the re~ipt of the order or intimaltion of allotment from theMCD. The
·subsequent instaments will be paid every three months thereafter. If any squatter/
hawker commits a defauHin 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. H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 bonajide thought that it was not
necessary to make a formal application to the Committee appointed forthe purpose
of scrutinising and verifying their claims, may be permitted to do so. Although we
B are generally reluctant to extend the time but having regard to the bon_ajide
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 who~e petitions/appeals/suits were pending in any
of the courts on 13th March, I 9n. By way ofa special consideration we grant time
c 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 prescribe4 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
D 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. Tl:;le procedure indicated by MCD, except for the modifica-
tions which we have made herein above, may be followed. Mr. Maheshwari states
that the endeavour of the MCD would be to complete the verification within four
E months from today. We think that this is a reasonable period. Let it be s·o 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 Mar.ch, 1992. Those who do
not fall in any one of the said four categories have no right as they fall outside the
F scheme and are not entitled to any protection. Since all those who claim to be
covered 11nder the scheme and whose claims are awaiting scrutiny are protected
by this order, we see no reason why their petitions/appeals/suits, etc., should ~e
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
G
~egistrar will ensure compliance. With these observati_ons, all the writ petitions/
apPeals/SLPs/suits, etc .• pending in this Court/the High Court ofDelhi 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/
H hawker will be entertained but if the MCD violates any part of this order the
- GAINDA RAM v. M.C.D. 711

concerned party governed by this order will be entitled to file an I.A. for directions. A
The interim stay orders granted iri 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 claims 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 B
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.

...