HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of four appeals arising out of an order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the Letters Patent Appeals.
(2.) Since the facts in all the appeals are similar, for facility of reference, facts from Civil Appeal No. 310 of 2015 are referred herein. A show cause notice dated 11.3.2004 was issued to respondent no.1 [Hereinafter referred to as the 'occupant'] alleging sub-letting and unauthorised construction in a stall located at Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi on the basis of a survey conducted on 4.3.2004. A reply was filed that the shop was allotted to Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal and the same was sublet in the year 1999 to the occupant. Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal transferred the shop in favour of the occupant in the year 2000 and therefore, the occupant claimed ownership of this property. In addition, the occupant relied upon the Circular dated 25.7.1996 as well as the policy adopted by the Government in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 31.8.2000 whereby occupants of the shops in the 14 specified markets were resolved to be granted ownership rights. Thus, the occupant claimed that there cannot be discrimination and she should also be treated in the same category as the occupants in the said 14 markets.
(3.) After considering the reply filed, an order of eviction was passed by the Estate Office, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi on 15.12.2005, ordering eviction of the allottee from whom the occupant had purchased the stall in question. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5.12.2006. The said order was challenged by the occupant before the Writ Court. The learned Single Bench allowed the two writ petitions holding that merely because market in question i.e., Baba Kharag Singh Marg Market has fallen into the lap of New Delhi Municipal Council [For short, the 'Council'] by virtue of notification dated 24.3.2006, it does not mean that the policy regarding substitution/mutation of ownership for that market can be different from the one adopted by the Council for all other markets managed by it. Therefore, the Council cannot treat them differently and the occupant was held to be entitled to regularization of allotment in accordance with its policies. The Council was directed to transfer the allotment in the favour of the occupant within two months. An intra-court appeal filed by the Council was dismissed on 6.4.2009 vide the impugned order. Still aggrieved, the Council is in appeal before this Court.;