Full Text
W.P.(C) 3852/2026
Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD YASIN & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nadeem Qureshi, Ms. Renu Chaudhary and Ms. Puvali Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain, Advocates for R-DUSIB.
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 3852/2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
2. The petitioners’ case is that their father had purchased the subject property from one Bihari Lal in the year 1989. In the impugned order, it has been noted that the subject property was allotted to the said Bihari Lal on a license-basis and the same could not be transferred to a third-party. It appears that Bihari Lal had sold the licensed property to the father of the petitioners.
3. Paragraph no.12 of the Impugned Order would indicate that the plot was allotted for residential purpose on a license basis and the same was illegally transferred by the original allottee for a commercial purpose.
4. Paragraph no.13 of the said order would further indicate that the purported sale/ transfer of the licensed premises is in violation of the terms and conditions of the license granted to the original allottee.
5. This Court finds that there is no legal right created in favour of the petitioner, the violation of which, would allow the present writ petition to be preferred. On the basis of such a purported allotment/ sale by the original allottee in favour of the petitioners’ father, the same would not create any vested indefeasibly right in favour of the petitioners as the licensed plot ought not to have been transferred/ sold to the petitioners’ father, without permission from the concerned authority.
6. Paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the impugned order are extracted as under:-
7. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity committed by the authority concerned in passing the Impugned Order.
8. With respect to the submission made by the petitioners that even the encroachers are entitled for rehabilitation, learned counsel for the respondent-Delhi Urban Shelter and Improvement Board (‘DUSIB’) is correct in his contention that rehabilitation has to take place in accordance with the rehabilitation policy.
9. The petitioners are claiming right not on the basis of the encroachment, or as a Jhuggi dweller, but the petitioners assert their right on the basis of the purported sale document, which was executed in favour of the petitioners’ father by the original allottee.
10. In view thereof, there cannot be any direction issued in the instant petition for rehabilitation of the petitioners or for allotment of any alternate accommodation.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is bereft of any merit, accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 25, 2026 Nc