UMA vs NEW-DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 31.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 1237/2025 UMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr N.K. Sahu, Advocate. versus NEW-DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.....Respondents Through: Mr Mananjay Mishra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for a direction to substitute her as a legal heir in place of her deceased husband Kirti Kumar, son of Late Mulchand, in respect of his place of squatting at Gate No.4 described as Gate No.3 & 4, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1. 4. The petitioner claims that she has a bench mark disability of 66% and has been carrying on vending activities near Gate No.4, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi. She submits that her husband, since deceased, was suffering from a bench mark disability of 90% and was carrying on the trade at the same site since 1985. The petitioner had also been assisting him in carrying on his activities. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GANGA SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 1237/2025 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:10.02.2025 15:52:51 5. It is also stated that the name of the petitioner’s husband finds mention in the list of 628 persons who were found eligible for allotment of tehbazari spaces by draw of lots in the year 2012. The petitioner also states that her husband was permitted by an order dated 01.06.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.3705/2011, to squat at the site near Gate No.4, Palika Bazar. The said order is not on record and the learned counsel appearing for NDMC does not accept the said contention. 6. The petitioner essentially claims that she be granted the same r