Devendra v. New-Delhi Municipal Council and Anr

judgment dated

29.07.2015 in the case of Dharam Chand Vs. Chairman NDMC and accordingly, the subject Pan Thara was sealed on 13.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said sealing Sh. Devendra filed WP(C) No.8328/18 & Sh. Devi Prasad also filed WP(C) No. 8885/18. xxx xxx xxx While, Devendra, petitioner herein, claims to be the grandson of the original allottee i.e, late Smt. Shyama Devi and her legal heir, and his claim is disputed by Sh.Devi Prasad (Respondent No.3 herein ) , who claims to be the sole surviving son of late Smt. Shyama Devi and has fi led his counter affidavit before this Hon'ble Court. In fact, in his counter, he (Sh. Devi Prasad) has claimed that Devendra and Sh . Praveen Kumar (Respondent No. 4) are hand in gloves with each other. Since, the policy dated 16.08.2016, specifically states that if there are disputes between the legal heirs, and which are not settled within 90 days of issuance of the circular, the license will be automatically be cancelled . xxx xxx xxx In that light, since , there are disputes regard i ng who is the legal heirs of late Smt.Shyama Devi , the order dated 14.02. 2019 of NDMC still stands and the representation of Sh. Devendra is rejected accordingly."

¶17As can be seen from the impugned speaking order, the claims of Mr. Devi Prasad and Mr. Devendra i.e., the Petitioner herein are conflicting with each other and the NDMC cannot be blamed.

¶18It is for the legal heirs to sort out their inter-se differences and then approach the NDMC which unfortunately, they have not done for the last several years. If the disputes are not getting resolved, the Petitioner ought to avail of his legal remedies and obtain a decree of declaration in accordance with law. In the absence of the same, the Kiosk cannot obviously be transferred to the Petitioner.

¶19In view thereof, there is infirmity in the impugned speaking order dated 23rd April, 2024.

¶20The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶21Needless to add, if the Petitioner has any other legal remedies in respect of inter-se disputes, he is free to avail of the same and thereafter approach the NDMC, if permissible in law. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2026 Rahul/ck

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16th February, 2026 Uploaded on: 17th February, 2026 + W.P.(C) 8005/2025 & CM APPL. 35171/2025 DEVENDRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sahoo, Adv. versus NEW-DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. Anurag Tiwari & Mr. Sahib Patel, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Devendra under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned speaking order dated 23rd April, 2024 passed by the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter, 'NDMC') vide which the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the NDMC. 3. The brief background of this petition is that a Kiosk/Pan Thara was initially allotted to Ms. Shyama Devi, Opposite Gate No.B, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. She was the allottee who had passed away on 13th July, 2017. Thereafter, two writs came to be filed being i.e., W.P.(C) 8885/2018 titled 'Devi Prasad vs NDMC & Ors.' and W.P.(C) 8328/2018 titled 'Devendra vs. NDMC & Ors.' The claim of both the Petitioners in the said writ petitions were that they were the legal heirs of Ms. Shyama Devi. 4. The claim of Mr. Devendra i.e., Petitioner herein is on the basis of a Will and that he has been running the Kiosk during the lifetime of Ms. Shyama Devi. However, the claim of Mr. Devi Prasad was that he was also a son of Ms. Shyama Devi but according to Mr. Devendra, he was disowned. 5. The order of sealing the Kiosk dated 11th July, 2018 was challenged in these writ petitions and after hearing the stand of all the parties, the Court directed vide order dated 13th September, 2018 as under: "4. Having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Chand (supra), we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of sealing passed by the NDMC. However, we find that post the order of sealing, the NDMC has not made any alternate allotment to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC has clarified that the alternate allotment could not have been made on account of the ongoing fight between the legal heirs. Counsel further submits that the request for alternate allotment by the legal heirs of late Smt. Shyama Devi would be considered within a period of six weeks after considering the rival claims of Devender and Devi Prasad and any other person who asserts his/her right over the kiosk. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the dispute and as to who would be surviving legal heir of late Smt. Shyama Devi. Needless to say that in case either of the two parties has produced documents in their support, an order would be passed after hearing both the sides and thereafter an alternate allotment would be made." 6. Subsequent to this order, another writ petition being W.P.(C) 5312/2019 titled 'Devendra vs. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.' was filed. In the said writ petition, the ld. Single Judge after considering the matter had passed interim order dated 11th December, 2023 as under: "1. Shri Sagar Kumar, learned counsel identifies respondent no.4 – Shri Praveen Kumar and represents him in the instant petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submits that he does not have any objection if the name of the petitioner is recorded in the subject property. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-NDMC, however, submits that NDMC will have to decide the application for mutation as per the extant Regulations. 4. Respondent no.1-NDMC is directed to decide the application for mutation as per extant Regulations and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. 5. List on 07.05.2024." 7. As can be seen from the above order, th