Rehabilitation Policy Not Meant for A Rank Trespassers: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea of Unauthorized Occupant Seeking Allotment of Shop Under

In a significant judgment Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gurmeet Singh, who sought allotment of a shop under the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation’s (DMRC) Rehabilitation Policy, despite being found to be a rank trespasser with no legal rights or title. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the policy intended to benefit only those who held valid licenses or Tehbazari rights, not illegal occupiers.  

Reaffirming the well-settled position of law, the Court categorically held,

 “The proposal was made only to accommodate all license holders whose licenses had been terminated and not to rank trespassers.”    

The case stemmed from the Delhi Metro Phase-I Project, which required the relocation of several shopkeepers from Panchkuian Road due to acquisition of land for metro construction. To address the rehabilitation of affected shopkeepers, the Government of NCT of Delhi and DMRC framed a Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy dated 25.10.2006, applicable to those who were license holders or Tehbazari holders duly recognized by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

 Gurmeet Singh, the appellant, sought to secure a shop under this policy by claiming that he was carrying on business at Shop No.145A, Panchkuian Road, and participated in the draw of lots for allotment of an alternative shop. His name appeared in the draw, and he was allotted Shop No.75 at Bhai Veer Singh Marg. However, DMRC subsequently denied possession, asserting that the appellant was not among those recognized under the Rehabilitation Policy.  

Gurmeet Singh challenged this before a Single Judge of the High Court, who, after considering the matter, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present intra-court appeal.

The principal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, without being a recognized licensee or Tehbazari holder, could claim allotment under the Rehabilitation Policy, and whether principles of promissory estoppel could compel DMRC to honour the draw of lots.  

The appellant argued that DMRC, during earlier litigation, had made representations before the Court, promising rehabilitation to displaced shopkeepers, and he had altered his position relying on such representation by depositing the required amount.

 “For claiming any benefit based on the principle of promissory estoppel, the representation or promise by the party concerned should be made unequivocally, and in the absence of any clear and unequivocal promise or representation, even if the other party alters its position, no rights can be said to be created.”    

The Bench further held that the DMRC’s internal file notings suggesting that the appellant might be eligible were not capable of conferring any enforceable right. The Court stressed that eligibility under the Rehabilitation Policy was strictly confined to license holders and Tehbazari holders whose names appeared in the list prepared by the MCD.  

“The proposal was made only to accommodate all license holders whose licenses had been terminated and not to rank trespassers,” the Court reiterated.    

The appellant’s inability to produce any license, Tehbazari, or even a provisional list prepared by MCD indicating his name, proved fatal to his case. The Court also pointed out that participation in the draw of lots did not automatically translate into an enforceable right to allotment.  

“The draw of lots was subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions. Mere participation in the draw or deposit of the premium without meeting eligibility cannot create enforceable rights,” the Bench clarified.

The Court on Promissory Estoppel and File Notings  

The appellant's reliance on the doctrine of promissory estoppel was categorically rejected. The Court held: “Doctrine of promissory estoppel is founded on equitable considerations and applies only when a promise has been unequivocally made. No such unequivocal promise was made to the appellant.”    

Additionally, the Court ruled that internal file notings do not constitute representations enforceable in law.  

“Internal file notings, even if they indicate a possibility of allotment, do not confer enforceable rights upon anyone.”

The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, holding that Gurmeet Singh was a rank trespasser with no right to claim the benefit of the Rehabilitation Policy framed for legitimate licensees and Tehbazari holders.  

“He was rather a rank trespasser of Shop No.145A at Panchkuian Road and accordingly the statement made before this Court on behalf of the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings of LPA 1609/2006 and other connected matters will not bind the respondents to allot the shop to the appellant,” concluded the Bench.    

The appeal was accordingly dismissed without costs.

Date of Decision: 03 April 2025