Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.07.2026
CENTRAL CITIZEN WELFARE ASSOCIATED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Rawat, Advocate.
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexure – A to Annexure – C annexed to the present Appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
4. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in WP
(C) No. 6862 of 2026 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant came to be dismissed.
5. The Appellant is a welfare society registered with the office of the received notice dated 07.05.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), directing it to vacate the Shamshan Bhoomi, Keshopur, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (“Cremation Ground”) within seven days from receipt thereof.
6. The notice dated 07.05.2026 referred to office order dated 30.03.2026, vide which the MCD resolved to accept the proposal of the Commissioner concerning the recommendation and approval of NGOs/RWOs/Self Help Groups/Trusts/Societies for the adoption, development and maintenance of cremation grounds, Hindu child burial grounds, Muslim burial grounds and Christian cemeteries under the MCD.
7. The notice dated 07.05.2026 further stated that the Cremation Ground had been adopted by Guru Nanak Sewa Foundation (Regd.), 53, Pocket-25, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085, and that possession thereof had been handed over by the Public Health Department, West Zone, MCD on 06.05.2026 in accordance with the legal process.
8. It is the case of the Appellant that it has been managing the affairs of the Cremation Ground for the past 32 years without interruption or disturbance. It is further averred that, recently, certain unknown persons visited the Cremation Ground, misbehaved with the office bearers of the Appellant and attempted to forcibly take possession of the Shamshan record book, among other records. In this regard, the Appellant has also lodged a complaint with P.S. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The Appellant further alleges that officials of the MCD, in collusion with certain anti-social elements, seek to hand over charge of the Cremation Ground to another person.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, in the year 2017, a Memorandum of Understanding (“2017 MoU”) was executed between the Appellant and the MCD, whereby charge of the Cremation Ground was allotted to the Appellant for its development and maintenance. It was further submitted that, up to May 2026, the Appellant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the 2017 MoU and had submitted all relevant records pertaining to the Cremation Ground to the office of the Respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has incurred substantial expenditure towards the development of the Cremation Ground and has raised various constructions therein for public welfare. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the 2017 MoU, the Appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the office of the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 06.02.2017, the receipt whereof was issued in the name of the President of the Appellant. Learned counsel further contended that, vide notice dated 07.05.2026, the Appellant has been abruptly directed to vacate the Cremation Ground without issuance of any show cause notice or grant of an opportunity of hearing.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material placed on record.
12. At the outset, it is observed that the present Appeal is not maintainable as the 2017 MoU, on which the Appellant places reliance, was not executed by the Appellant but by Shamshan Bhoomi Sudhar Samiti (Regd.) (“Samiti”), an independent society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 since 1997. Although the Appellant has sought to contend that it is the Managing Committee of the Samiti, the same does not confer upon the Appellant any right to institute the Writ Petition or to prefer the present Appeal. Accordingly, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, as the Appellant has no right to institute proceedings on behalf of the Samiti.
13. In any event, the learned Single Judge vide the Impugned Order observed as under:
14. The 2017 MoU was in the nature of a licence in favour of the Samiti, which was initially valid for a period of one year and, upon satisfactory functioning, extendable for a further period of two years. The 2017 MoU stood exhausted by efflux of time. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate either any further extension thereof or the conferment of any independent right in favour of the Samiti to continue in possession of the Cremation Ground thereafter.
15. Once the licence stood exhausted on account of expiry of its term, the continued possession of the Cremation Ground by the Samiti, or any expenditure stated to have been incurred towards its maintenance, could not, in the absence of any subsisting extension of the 2017 MoU or any independent legal right, confer any right in favour of Samiti and / or the Appellant.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the MCD was entitled to seek eviction of the Samiti / Appellant and to allot the Cremation Ground to another entity. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Impugned Order and no merit in the present Appeal.
17. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ JULY 10, 2026