- (1.) In Saudan Singh v. NDMC 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. (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' x 4' 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 Persons 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 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 hand bills, posters, etc. , between the months of june and August 1992. In regard to the category of hawkers/squattersmentioned 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 23/12/1982 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 sub-classification is not warranted. Even in regard to those who do not possess the survey report receipt dated December 23, 1982 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-classification is necessary.
(2.) 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' x 4' would 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 finalised. We would like to clarify that in the name of the procedure set out by the MCD, which they propose to 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 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 remove it when they leave the place after business hours.
(3.) Under category (3 in paragraph I I 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/hawkershaving 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 have 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. 00 in four quarterly instalments of Rs. 750. 00 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.;