{"id":88928,"date":"1993-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993"},"modified":"2015-01-21T17:16:19","modified_gmt":"2015-01-21T11:46:19","slug":"gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","title":{"rendered":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (3) 704, \t 1993 SCC (3) 178<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGAINDA RAM AND ORS.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.C.D. TOWN HALL AND ORS.  ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/05\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nANAND, A.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (3) 704\t  1993 SCC  (3) 178\n JT 1993 (3)   396\t  1993 SCALE  (2)893\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, 1950:\nArticles  14, 19 (1) (g) and  21-Squatters\/hawkers-Grant  of\nTehbazari  Permission  by Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi-\nScheme\tevolved\t by  the Corporation on\t the  directions  of\nSupreme Court--Clarifications and further directions given.\nDelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957:\nSection-420-Grant of Tehbazari Permission to squatters\/hawk-\ners--Scheme   formulated  as  directed\tby  Supreme   Court-\nClarifications and further directions issued.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nCertain guidelines were issued by this Court in Saudan Singh\nv.  N.D.M.C.  & Ors.<\/a> [1992] 2 S.C.R. 243 in respect  of\t the\nsquatters\/hawkers carrying on business activity in the\tarea\nunder  the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.  Pursuant to\t the\nsaid guidelines, the respondent M.C.D. evolved a Scheme\t and\nundertook an exercise to complete the scrutiny of the claims\nof the squatters\/ hawkers for grant of tehbazari  permission\nby  which  it  subclassified  the  persons  found  squatting\nbetween\t 1970 and 1982, and laid down the procedures  to  be\nfollowed  in the implementation of the\tScheme.\t  Aggrieved,\nthe  petitioner squatters\/hawkers approached this Court\t for\nappropriate  directions on their petitions pending  in\tthis\nCourt.\nDisposing  of the cases, and clarifying directions given  in\nSaudan Singh and giving further directions, this Court,\nHELD  :\t 1.1.  In  regard to persons  who  have\t been  found\nsquatting  between  1970  and  1982  and  whose\t names\twere\ncontained  in  the Survey Report, and who  were\t to  receive\nfirst  priority\t as per the guidelines\tissued,\t the  M.C.D.\ndivided them into two classes viz., those who possessed\t the\nsurvey\treport-receipt\tand  those who did  not\t posses\t the\nreceipt but could tender evidence or proof of squatting from\n1970 to 1982.  According to M.C.D. the latter category would\nbe considered after the former.\t It is made clear that\tboth\nthe   classes\tbelong\tto  one\t category   and\t  the\tsub-\nclassification is not\n705\nwarranted. (708-F-G)\n1.2In the name of the procedure set out by the M.C.D.,\tthey\nwould not be permitted to change the nature of the tehbazari\nof  those  who\thave been expressly  permitted\tfacility  of\ncovered\t the tehbazari\/kiosks\/shops\/stalls in the  past\t but\nthose  who are not given that facility will not be  entitled\nto it.\tTemporary tarpaulin covers\/umbrellas would not\tfall\nwithin the expression 'covered tehbazari because these would\nbe  necessary to combat the vagaries of nature.\t  They\twill\nhowever, be liable to be evicted if under this pretext\tthey\ntry to put up a semi-permanent cover over the area on  which\nthey are permitted to squat.  By way of abundant caution and\nto avoid harassment it would be desirable for them to put up\nonly a temporary cover to beat the sun or the remand  remove\nit when they leave the place after business hours.(709C-D)\n1.3   Having regard to the segment of the society  to  which\nmany  of  the squatters\/hawkers belong, they  may  not\thave\nretained  the tehbazari receipts and it would also be  well-\nnigh  impossible for the M.C.D. to verify their records\t and\ndetermine whether or not such squatters\/hawkers had in\tfact\npaid  the  tehbazari.\tTherefore, option is  given  to\t the\nsquattest hawkers who face this difficulty, to pay a lumpsum\nof Rs. 3000 in four quarterly installments of Rs. 750  each.\nThe  first installment will be paid within one\tmonth  after\nthe receipt of the order or intimation of allotment from the\nM.C.D. The subsequent installments will be paid every  three\nmonths thereafter.  If any squatter\/ hawker commits  default\nin  the payment of the installments, his allotment  will  be\ntable to be cancelled one month after a reminder is sent  to\nhim  and the next person in the order of seniority  will  he\nallotted that space. (709-F-H)\n1.4By  way of a special consideration, time of one month  is\ngranted\t to such claimants whose cases were pending  on\t the\ndate  of decision in Saudan Singh's case, but who  have\t not\nfiled formal claims, to file their claims before the  M.C.D.\nCommittee  with\t all accompaniments  and  particulars.\t The\nM.C.D. Committee will examine such claims.  The claims to be\nfiled  need not be in any prescribed form, but\tmay  furnish\nthe    particulars   along   with   the\t  copy\t of    their\npetition\/appeal\/suit pending on or before 13th March,  1992,\nduly  attested\tby the Advocate for the party.\tIn  case  of\ndoubt,\tM.C.D. will be at liberty to demand from that  party\nthe production of a certified copy. (710-C-E)\n1.5These   directions\twould  apply  to   claims   of\t all\nsquatters\/hawkers who fall in the four categories enumerated\nin  Saudan  Singh,  and others have no right  as  they\tfall\noutside the scheme and are not entitled to any protection.\n706\nSince all those who claim to be covered under the scheme and\nwhose  claims  are awaiting scrutiny are protected  by\tthis\norder,\tall  the writ petitions\/ appeals\/SLPs  Suits,  etc.,\npending\t in  this Court\/the High Court of Delhi\t and  Courts\nsubordinate  to\t it shall stand\t terminated  forthwith.\t  No\nfurther\t litigation by or on behalf of\tany  squatter\/hawker\nwill  be entertained but if the M.C.D. violates any part  of\nthis order, the concerned party governed by this order\twill\nbe  entitled  to file an I.A. for directions.\tThe  interim\nstay orders granted in those cases shall also stand vacated.\nThe  M.C.D. will, however, maintain the status quo till\t the\nverification is completed. (710-F-H, 712-A-B)\nSaudan Singh V.NDMC & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 458, relied on\t and\nthe directions given therein clarified.\nThe Court observed that the M.C.D. would ensure that  future\nencroachments  do  not take place defeating  the  rights  of\nexisting  squatters\/hawkers governed under the\tscheme,\t and\nthat  it would also protect the interest of the\t shopkeepers\nas  they  too have a similar right under Article 21  of\t the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 1699 of 1987.
\nUnder Articles 32 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\nWrit  Petition\t(C) Nos. 1059\/87, 324, 311, 841,  318,\t315,
\n299,  334, 335, 457, 414, 435, 436, 438, 31, 157, 213,\t215,
\n217,  188,809,441,483, 150, of 1990,616, 1065, 376 of  1989,
\n372\/87,323\/90,269\/90,317\/86,700\/86,1096\/87,435\/89,479,\t552,
\n837,  903,  1097  of 1987, 33\/88, 228,\t313,  125  of  1989,
\n627\/88,\t SLP  (C) No. 5127\/90, WP (C) 475\/87,  281,  909  of
\n1987, 51\/88, SLP (C) 4501\/87, WP(C) 394, 1158 of 1989,\t494,
\n488, 322, 500, 712 of 1990, 264\/86, 752, 798, 791, 793, 790,
\n776  of 1990, 398\/89, 984 of 1990, 719, 1301, 349  of  1987,
\n138,  418, 1263, 964 of 1989, 11096-97\/94, 1011, 752 of\t 88,
\nSLP  (C) 12418\/87, 501\/87, 13156\/86, CMP 1278 of 1987 in  WP
\n248\/87,924\/87,\t  1531\/87,479\/87,522\/89,1042\/89,109\/\t 90,
\n131\/90,\t 141\/90, 146, 156, 157, 164,  180,  238,313,317,351,
\n359   of   1990,   I.A.\t 361  of  1990,\t  in   WP   360\t  of
\n1990,362,436,438,445,447,454,455,  457, 478, 483, 488,\t494,
\n498,565,663,664,712,743,776,790,809,814,823,835,886,905,923,
\n940,944,985,  989,  995, 996, 1007, 1008,1009,\t1010,  1049,
\n1097,1132,1125,\t   1161,    1180,    1185,    1186,\t1187
\n,1192,1194,1195,1212,1214,1231,1281,1295, 1294, 1233,  1251,
\n1258,  1283,  127 1 of 1990, 1476, 313, 1316,  1251  of\t the
\n1987,  321\/86, 237\/90, SLP (C) 6925\/87, 14496\/89,  WP  1001,
\n1004, 1007, 595, 747, 1146, 1156 of 1992, 7, 8, 19 of  1992,
\n13712-13 of 1984, 54, 62, 109 of 1992 15,
\n707<\/span>
\n45, 137,144,146,145, 147,148, 180,221, 263, 267,347,348,401,
\n349,350,35  1, 352, 353, 355, 357, 372, 393, 520, 614,\t629,
\n628,   755,   1055,1059,1060,1062,   1066,1117\t of1991,1344
\nof1990,161\/84,11096-97\/84,134,216,362,401,348,\t700,   1203,
\n1210,  1258, 1273, 1278, 1291, 1305, 1214 of 1987, 163,\t 434
\nof   1989,  897\/89,1341\/89,1436\/86,1651,1754of\t 1986,12492-
\n541\/84,1304\/90,1472\/87, 1126\/87,479\/87,138\/90,1266\/90,13712-
\n13\/84,342,462,539,701,799,931,287 of 1990, 677\/89, 168, 200,
\n217, 253,256,320,365, 374, 375,376of 1992, 20\/91, 10 1, 136,
\n154,  272, 354, 387, 400, 425, 436, 1054 of 199 1,  SLP\t (C)
\n3119\/93.\n<\/p>\n
Govinda\t Mukhoty, V.M. Tarkunde, Arun Jaitley V.C.  Mahajan,
\nK.N.  Rai,  A.P.  Singh,  G.K.\tBansal,\t P.H.  Parekh,\tB.N.
\nAgarwala, Ms. Simi Kumar, Ms. Sanriti Mishra, M.M.  Kashyap,
\nMs.  Meenakshi Arora, K.R. Nagaraja Ms. Sarla Chandra,\tR.C.
\nKaushik, Satish Chandra Agarwal, L.K. Gupta, D.K. Gara,\t Ms.
\nRenu Gupta, P.Narsimhan, B.B. Tawakley, S.K. Sabharwal,\t An-
\ndan  Ghosh,  R.C.  Verma,  B.D.\t Sharma,  A.K.\tSangh,\t PK.
\nManohar,  A.P.\tMohanty, Bharat Sangal, Ms.  Lalita  Kaushik
\n(N.P.),\t Shree Pal Singh, N. Ganpathy, S.N. Bhatt, Ms.\tRani
\nJethmalani, S.K. Bisaria, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. Rani Chabra,\t Uma
\nDatta,\tShakil\tAhmed, Anil Kumar Gupta\t (11),\tMs.  Manjeet
\nChawla,\t Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Indra Sawhney, L.K.\t Pandey,  S.
\nSreenivasan,  Anis Suhrawardy, S.P. Tambwekar,\tS.P.  Pandey
\nfor Pandey and Associates, A.S. Pundir, M.B. Lal & Co. Manoj
\nPrasad,\t J.P.  Verghese,  M.P. Raju,  Vishnu  Mathur,  Manoj
\nSwarup,\t Sandeep  Narain,  Shree Narain,  Ms.  P.  Gopinath,
\nRanjit\tKumar  R.K.  Maheshwari,  Vineet  Maheshwari,\tV.B.
\nSaharya for Saharya & Co., Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Bina Gupta,
\nK.B.  Rohtagi  S.R.  Setia, K.K. Mohan,\t S,K.\tNandy,\tR.D.
\nUpadhyay,  Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, S.M. Ashri, S.N. Sikka,\tB.K.
\nPrasad, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. A.  Suhashini,
\nSudersh\t Menon, G.S. Chatterjee and M.C.  Dhingra  Advocates
\nwith them for the appearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
The Following Order of the Court was delivered
\nIn Saudan Singh v. NDMC & Ors, [1992] 2SCC 458 we laid\tdown
\ncertain\t  guidelines  in  paragraph  11\t of   the   judgment
\nconcerning  squatters\/hawkers carrying on business  activity
\nin  the area within the administrative control of MCD.\t The
\nguidelines laid down were four in number, namely
\n(1)  Persons who have been found squatting between 1970\t and
\n1982  and  whose names are contained in\t the  survey  report
\nprepared  after\t the survey conducted in 1982  will  receive
\nfirst priority for grant of tehbazari permission subject  to
\nthe scrutiny of their claims;\n<\/p>\n
708<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)  Insofar  as casual  tehbazari  on  weekly
\n\t      holidays, festivals\/melas, etc., is concerned,
\n\t      as  well\tas  at the 67  weekly  bazars  held,
\n\t      persons  availing\t of the\t said  benefit\twill
\n\t      continue\tto be granted the casual  or  weekly
\n\t      tehbazari;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)     Squatters\t    who\t    have     started
\n\t      squatting\/hawking in 1983 onwards and who were
\n\t      not found on the date of survey would also  be
\n\t      considered  for  grant of\t open  tehbazari  of
\n\t      6’x4′  subject to the production of  proof  of
\n\t      continuous  squatting and proof  of  residence
\n\t      and nationality.\tSuch squatters\/hawkers would
\n\t      be   granted   open   tehbazari\tsubject\t  to
\n\t      availability  of\tspace  provided\t they\thave
\n\t      cleared the dues of the MCD; and
\n\t      (4)  Personal  who  do not,  fall\t within\t the
\n\t      aforesaid three categories would be  permitted
\n\t      to  apply for hawking licences  under  section
\n\t      420  of the Delhi Municipal  Corporation\tAct,
\n\t      1957   and   their   applications\t  would\t  be
\n\t      considered  on  merit for permission  to\thawk
\n\t      not  squat by moving in specified\t areas\twith
\n\t      their goods on their heads or on cycles.\tThey
\n\t      will   be\t  entitled  to\t hawk\twith   their
\n\t      goods,anywhere in the zone in respect of which
\n\t      they   have  not\tbeen  granted\ta   licence.
\n\t      However,\tsuch permission will be\t subject  to
\n\t      any  restrictions that may be imposed  by\t the
\n\t      residential    associations    of\t   different
\n\t      colonies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Pursuant  to  the  said guidelines, the\t MCD  issued  public
\nnotices in newspapers and through handbills, posters,  etc.,
\nbetween\t the months of June and August, 1992.  In regard  to
\nthe   category\t of  hawkers\/squatters\tmentioned   in\t the
\nguidelines,  the MCD has undertaken an exercise to  complete
\nthe scrutiny expeditiously.  In regard to  hawkers\/squatters
\nfalling\t under category (1), the MCD has divided  them\tinto
\ntwo  classes,  namely,\tthose who  possess  survey-  report-
\nreceipt\t dated\t23.12.82 and those who do not  possess\tthat
\nreceipt but are in a position to tender evidence or proof of
\ntheir  squatting from 1970 to 1982.  It is stated  that\t the
\nlatter\t category  will\t stand\tand  will  be  treated\t and
\nconsidered after the former.  We would like to make it clear
\nthat   they   all   belong  to\t one   category\t  and\tthis
\nsubclassification is not
\nwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
Even in regard to those who do not possess the survey report
\nreceipt\t dated 23. 12. 82 but tender satisfactory  proof  in
\nregard\tto  their  squatting from 1970\tto  1982  should  be
\nconsidered  along with those who possess the receipt and  be
\narranged  in the order of their respective seniorities.\t  We
\ndo not think that the sub-\n<\/p>\n
709<\/span><\/p>\n
classification is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
The    MCD    has    also    stated    that    no    covered
\ntehbazari\/kiosks\/stalls\/shops  will be given to\t any  person
\nunder  the present scheme and only open to sky tehbazari  on
\narea  admeasuring  6’x4′  should be  permitted\tto  eligible
\nsquatters   and\t  the  seniority  list\twill   be   prepared
\naccordingly  on\t submission  of\t proof.\t  Counsel  for\t the
\nsquatters\/hawkers    contended\t  that\t  earlier    covered
\ntehbazari\/kiosks\/shops\/stalls was permitted to some of\tthem
\nlike Jai Jawan Stores, etc., and if by this procedure it  is
\nintended  to disturb them that should not be permitted.\t  We
\nread  this  procedure only to mean that those who  have\t not
\nbeen expressly given such facility will not be given covered
\ntehbazari\/kiosks\/shops\/stalls, etc., under the scheme  which
\nis  being flnalised.  We would like to clarify that  in\t the
\nname of the procedure set out by the MCD, which they propose
\nfollow\tto finalise claims, they would not be  permitted  to
\nchange\tthe nature of the tehbazari of those, who have\tbeen
\nexpressly      permitted      facility\t    of\t     covered
\ntehbazari\/kiosks\/shops\/stalls in the past but those who\t are
\nnot given that facility will not be entitled to it.  We\t may
\nalso clarify that temporary tarpaulin covers\/umbrellas would
\nnot  fall within the expression ‘covered  tehbazari  because
\nthese  would be necessary to combat the vagaries of  nature.
\nThey  will, however, be liable to be evicted if\t under\tthis
\npretext\t they try to put up a semi-permanent cover the\tarea
\non  which  they are permitted to squat.\t Byway\tof  abundant
\ncaution\t and to avoid harassment it would be  desirable\t for
\nthem  to  put up only a temporary cover to beat the  sun  or
\ntherein\t and  remove  it when they  leave  the\tplace  after
\nbusiness hours.\n<\/p>\n
Under  category\t (3) -in paragraph 1 1 of the  Judgment,  we
\nhave   in   the\t  concluding   lines   stated\tthat\tsuch
\nsquatters\/hawkers would be granted open tehbazari subject to
\navailability of space provided they have cleared the dues of
\nthe  MCD.   Counsel  submitted\tthat  this  requirement\t  of
\nclearing  the  dues is likely to  cause\t avoidable  Hardship
\nsince the period covered would be almost of a decade and  at
\ntimes more.  Many of the squatters\/.hawkers having regard to
\nthe  segment  of society to which they belong may  not\thave
\nretained  the  receipts\t and  it  would\t also  be  well-nigh
\nimpossible for the MCD to verify their records and determine
\nwhether or not such. squatters\/hawkers had in fact paid\t the
\ntehbazari.  We see considerable force in this submission and
\nwe,  therefore, provide an option to the  squatters\/hawkers,
\nwho  face this difficulty to pay a lump sum of Rs. 3,000  in
\nfour  quarterly\t instalments  of Rs. 750  each.\t  The  first
\ninstalment  will be paid within one month after the  receipt
\nof  the order or intimation of allotment from the MCD.\t The
\nsubsequent  instalments\t will  be paid\tevery  three  months
\nthereafter.   If any squatter\/ hawker commits a\t default  in
\nthe payment of the instalments, his allotment will be liable
\nto  be cancelled one month after a reminder is sent  to\t him
\nand  the  next\tperson in the order  of\t seniority  will  be
\nallotted that space.\n<\/p>\n
710<\/span><\/p>\n
Lastly,\t   it\twas   submitted\t  by   counsel\t  for\t the
\nsquatters\/hawkers  that some of them who had  already  filed
\npetitions\/appeals  in  this Court or in the  High  Court  or
\nsuits in the Trial Courts prior to the date of this  Court’s
\njudgment  in Saudan Singh dated 13th March, 1992 and who  on
\nthat account bona fide thought that it was not necessary  to
\nmake a formal application to the Committee appointed for the
\npurpose\t of scrutinising and verifying their claims, may  be
\npermitted to do so.  Although we are generally reluctant  to
\nextend\t the  time  but\t having\t regard\t to   the   bonafide
\nmisunderstanding  pointed  out by counsel on behalf  of\t the
\nsquatters\/hawkers, we put it to the learned counsel for\t the
\nMCD  if the MCD would have no objection to the extension  of
\ntime  and he fairly stated that he would have  no  objection
\nprovided   the\t facility   is\tlimited\t  to   those   whose
\npetitions\/appeals\/suits were pending in any of the courts on
\n13th  March,  1992.  By Way of a  special  consideration  we
\ngrant time of one month from today to such claimants to file
\ntheir\tclaims\t before\t  the\tMCD   Committee\t  with\t all
\naccompaniments\tand  particulars.  The\tMCD  Committee\twill
\nexamine such claims.  The claims to be filed need not be  in
\nany prescribed form, but may furnish the particulars and  be
\naccompanied with the copy of the petition\/ appeal suit\twith
\ntheir  numbers\twhich they claim were pending on  or  before
\n13th  March,  1992,  duly attested as a\t true  copy  by\t the
\nAdvocate for the party.\t If there is any doubt, MCD will  be
\nat  liberty  to\t demand from that party\t the  production  of
\na  certified copy.  We would expect the MCD to complete\t the
\nprocess of verification as early as possible.  The procedure
\nindicated by MCD, except for the modifications which we have
\nmade  hereinabove, may be followed.  Mr.  Maheshwari  states
\nthat  the  endeavour  of the MCD would be  to  complete\t the
\nverification  within four months from today.  We think\tthat
\nthis is a reasonable period.  Let it be so done.
\nThe   directions   given  hereinabove\tbeing\tof   general
\napplication  would apply to claims of all  squatters\/hawkers
\nwho fall within the categories enumerated in paragraph 11 of
\nSaudan\tSingh’s judgment dated 13th March, 1992.  Those\t who
\ndo  not fall in any one of the said four categories have  no
\nright  as they fall outside the scheme and are not  entitled
\nto any protection.  Since all those who claim to be  covered
\nunder the scheme and whose claims are awaiting scrutiny\t are
\nprotected  by  this  order,  we\t see  no  reason  why  their
\npetitions\/appeals\/suits, etc., should be kept pending.\t We,
\ntherefore,  propose  to\t dispose  them\tof  by\tthis  order.
\nIntimation  of this order will be sent to the  Registrar  of
\nthe  High  Court of Delhi who will immediately\tapprise\t the
\nJudges\tof  the subordinate judiciary for  compliance.\t The
\nRegistrar will ensure compliance.  With these  observations,
\nall the writ petitions\/ appeals\/SLPs\/suits, etc., pending in
\nthis Court\/the High Court of Delhi and Courts subordinate to
\nit shall stand terminated by this forthwith.  In other words
\nno  civil  litigation  commenced  by or\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nsquatters\/hawkers  pending  in\tthe Courts  of\tDelhi  shall
\nsurvive.   No  further\tlitigation by or on  behalf  of\t any
\nsquatter\/ hawker will be entertained but if the MCD violates
\nany part of this order the
\n711<\/span>
\nconcerned  party governed by this order will be entitled  to
\nfile  an  I.A.\tfor directions.\t  The  interim\tstay  orders
\ngranted\t in those cases shall also stand vacated.   The\t MCD
\nwill, however, maintain the status quo till the verification
\nis  completed and only in regard to those  hawkers\/squatters
\nwhose  claim  are negatived, will it be open to the  MCD  to
\ntake  action for their eviction ten days after the claim  is
\nrejected.    The   MCD\t will  also   ensure   that   future
\nencroachments  do  not take place defeating  the  rights  of
\nexisting  squatters\/hawkers governed under the\tscheme.\t  It
\nwill  also protect the interest of the shop-keepers as\tthey
\ntoo   have  a  similar\tright  under  Article  21   of\t the
\nConstitution.  No order as to costs in all cases.
\nG.N.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   Petitions disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
712<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (3) 704, 1993 SCC (3) 178 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: GAINDA RAM AND ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: M.C.D. TOWN HALL AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/05\/1993 BENCH: AHMADI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2047,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\",\"name\":\"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993","datePublished":"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993"},"wordCount":2047,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993","name":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-21T11:46:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gainda-ram-and-ors-etc-vs-m-c-d-town-hall-and-ors-etc-on-12-may-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gainda Ram And Ors. Etc vs M.C.D. Town Hall And Ors. Etc on 12 May, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88928","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88928"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88928\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}