Only Active Shopkeepers “Doing Business” Qualify for Alternative Shops under GNCTD’s MRTS Rehabilitation Policy: Delhi High Court’s Clarification in Surender Kumar v. GNCTD (2025 DHC 8227)

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Delhi High Court’s judgment in W.P.(C) 2137/2015, Surender Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., pronounced on 17 September 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma (2025 DHC 8227). The case addresses a recurring and practically significant question under the GNCTD’s Relocation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy for project-affected persons in Delhi Metro Rail projects: whether mere ownership of an acquired shop suffices for allotment of an alternative shop, or whether the claimant must prove that a commercial business was actively being carried on from the premises at the relevant time.

The petitioner, a co-owner of land and a small shop at Mundka acquired for the Mundka Metro Station (Inderlok–Mundka Corridor, Phase II), sought an alternative shop under the R&R Policy. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) rejected his application on the basis that the shop was found closed in joint survey and valuation exercises vetted by the Public Works Department (PWD). The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice and asserted that as an owner whose shop was acquired, he was entitled to alternative allotment. The respondents (GNCTD, DMRC, and the Land Acquisition authorities) countered that the policy entitled only “project affected shopkeepers, doing business,” and that the petitioner never established he was operating a business from the shop during the relevant period.

The Court’s resolution provides a clear and authoritative interpretation of the eligibility clause in the 25.10.2006 GNCTD Policy. It also clarifies the role of governmental surveys/valuations and the kind of proof expected from claimants seeking rehabilitation as shopkeepers.

Summary of the Judgment

• The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the GNCTD’s R&R Policy for MRTS projects draws a deliberate distinction among categories—shops, residences, and workshops/industrial units—and restricts the benefit of an alternate shop to “persons doing business” from the acquired shop (whether owners or tenants).
• Mere ownership of an acquired shop is insufficient. To avail the policy, the claimant must establish that they were actually carrying on business from the shop at the relevant time (survey/valuation/acquisition period).
• On facts, the petitioner did not discharge this burden. The joint survey and valuation, vetted by PWD, recorded the shop as closed; the electricity bills suggested negligible consumption indicative of non-commercial use; permits/bills relied upon did not correlate to the acquired premises; and affidavits showed the electricity connection was used by others. Consequently, the petitioner did not qualify as a “project affected shopkeeper, doing business.”
• The Court parsed the GNCTD policy clauses (1)(a)-(e) and emphasized that Clause 1(c) (shops—persons doing business) is a qualifying requirement, not a surplusage. The objective of rehabilitation is livelihood protection of those displaced from ongoing business activities, not a second layer of benefit to owners who already receive compensation for land acquisition.

Detailed Analysis

Policy Text and its Centrality to the Decision

The decision turns on the GNCTD’s circular dated 25.10.2006 containing “Relocation and Rehabilitation of the Project Affected Persons of all categories due to implementation of Delhi MRTS Projects.” The Court closely examined the eligibility clauses:

• Clause 1(a): Uniform applicability to all phases of MRTS.
• Clause 1(b): General coverage—those whose shops/residences/workshops or industrial units are so affected that they must leave the premises; persons losing less than 50% of premises and continuing from the residual portion are not eligible.
• Clause 1(c): In case of shops, the “persons doing business,” whether owner or tenant, are eligible.
• Clause 1(d): Residences—rehabilitation only for owners actually residing; tenants excluded.
• Clause 1(e): Workshops/industrial units—treated similarly to shops.

The Court considered Clause 1(c) to be a decisive qualifier for shop claims—an applicant must demonstrate business activity from the acquired shop to be eligible. The policy’s architecture purposefully connects eligibility to active use (business or residence), not mere title.

Respondents’ Evidentiary Case and Petitioner’s Failure of Proof

• Survey and valuation: The property (marked “Bhairo Tourist” in records) was noted as closed in the joint survey and valuation by a government-registered valuer, vetted by PWD (specific reference: valuation entry at Sr. Nos. 30–35; valuation amount Rs. 2,71,061.64/- in Award No. 03/DC(W)/2008-2009, Village Mundka).
• Electricity bills: Nominal consumption in Jan/Jun/Oct 2007 (Rs. 41.30, 93.50, and 41.26 respectively) was cited as consistent with non-commercial use and a closed shop. One bill even suggested residential use.
• Document mismatch: Stage carriage permits and other papers pertained to a different address (House No. 494, Village Mundka) rather than the acquired shop (P. No. 06, Khasra No. 246). Self-generated documents were found insufficient to establish business operations.
• Affidavits: Material in the record suggested the electricity connection at the shop was being used by other shop owners, undermining the claim of the petitioner’s own business operations from the site.

On this record, the Court held that the petitioner did not qualify as a “project affected shopkeeper” within the meaning of Clause 1(c).

Precedents and Authorities Cited

The judgment is primarily grounded in the text of the GNCTD Policy (25.10.2006), the official survey/valuation process, and the statutory framework of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No reported judicial decisions were relied upon as controlling precedents in the ratio. However, the following legal and administrative instruments informed the factual and legal backdrop:

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  • Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration in relation to Khasra No. 246, Village Mundka.
  • Section 11 (Award No. 03/DC(W)/2008-09, dated 19.05.2009). The Award also noted the survey/valuation and aspects of structural authorization.
  • Section 18 (Reference to Court): DMRC argued that the petitioner ought to have challenged any adverse observations (e.g., “shop closed”) via Section 18 reference; though the Court did not dismiss the writ on alternative remedy, the point underscores the available statutory route.
• GNCTD Policy on R&R for MRTS projects:
  • Circular dated 31.01.2002 (earlier guidance).
  • Policy circular dated 25.10.2006—the operative policy analyzed by the Court.
• Administrative material:
  • Joint survey/valuation by a government-registered valuer, vetted by PWD.
  • DMRC’s communication dated 12.02.2013 rejecting the application on “shop closed” footing and advising liaison with PWD.
  • Affidavits filed by DMRC in 2024 and 2025 reinforcing the evidentiary basis.

Given the intensely policy-textual approach of the Court, the absence of case-law citations is unsurprising; the controversy was resolved by the policy language and the factual record.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is structured and purposive:

• Textual interpretation: Clause 1(c) is a strict eligibility requirement for shop claims—only those “doing business” are eligible. It is not diluted by Clause 1(b); rather, 1(b) sets the general coverage, while 1(c) narrows eligibility for the “shop” category. Similar structures for residence (1(d)) and workshops (1(e)) confirm that the policy calibrates benefit by actual, ongoing use.
• Policy purpose: Rehabilitation aims to cushion livelihood disruption for persons displaced from active business premises. Owners (including shop owners) receive compensation under acquisition law for title; the alternative shop is a special measure targeted at livelihood continuity, not a universal ownership-based entitlement.
• Relevance of surveys: If the policy were ownership-based, the extensive machinery of government surveys/valuations would be redundant. By contrast, under the business-activity model, survey findings are central to determining eligibility. The petitioner’s claim that the shop was found closed due to personal reasons did not, without corroborative evidence, outweigh the official survey/valuation record.
• Burden of proof: The onus lies on the claimant to demonstrate business activity at the relevant time. The petitioner’s materials (low electricity consumption, address mismatch on permits, self-generated papers) did not satisfy this burden.
• Natural justice: Although the petitioner asserted breach (no personal hearing), the Court resolved the matter on merits under the policy and record. The decision implies that when eligibility turns on objective documentary criteria (surveys, valuations, consumptions, registrations), absence of a standalone hearing—especially where the applicant is directed to engage with PWD—does not, in itself, vitiate a decision made on a sound evidentiary basis. The Court did not find any infirmity warranting interference.

Impact and Significance

This decision carries immediate operational and doctrinal consequences for R&R claims in metro and similar infrastructure projects:

• Eligibility tightened to active commerce: Claimants must show that, at the relevant period (survey/valuation/acquisition), they were operating a business from the shop. Mere ownership—or even past/future intention to operate—will not suffice.
• Evidence standards clarified: Official survey/valuation findings, vetted by PWD or equivalent authorities, will carry substantial weight. Claimants should be prepared to produce:
  • Commercial electricity consumption patterns,
  • Trade licences, GST registrations, tax returns reflecting business at the specific premises,
  • Invoices, stock registers, bank statements tied to the shop address,
  • Rental agreements (for tenants), signage/branding proofs, and inspection records.
• Address correlation is crucial: Documents must match the acquired premises. Permits/licenses for unrelated addresses will not prove activity at the shop in question.
• Surveys as prima facie indicators: Where surveys note “shop closed,” a claimant must rebut this with strong contemporaneous evidence of business operations. Intermittent or occasional use may be insufficient.
• Procedural pathways: If an adverse finding (e.g., shop closure) is recorded in an acquisition award, a Section 18 reference (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) is an available remedy; failing to pursue it may weaken later challenges. While the Court did not dismiss the writ on this ground, the point is instructive for future litigants.
• Policy coherence confirmed: The judgment fortifies the principle that R&R is meant to restore livelihoods, not to grant duplicative benefits alongside acquisition compensation. This may guide authorities in consistent application of similar policies across projects.

Broader implications may extend to projects under the newer Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR), wherever project-specific R&R schemes maintain a “doing business” or “actual use” condition. The logic of this judgment—tying rehabilitation to demonstrable displacement of ongoing activity—could be persuasive in kindred contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ petition (Article 226): A constitutional remedy seeking judicial review of governmental action for legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  • Section 4: Government notification indicating intention to acquire land.
  • Section 6: Formal declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose.
  • Section 11: “Award” by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) determining compensation and noting relevant facts.
  • Section 18: Remedy to seek a “reference” to a court if a person is aggrieved by aspects of the award (e.g., compensation or certain recorded findings).
• Khasra/Biswa: Khasra numbers identify land parcels; “biswa” is a unit of area used in parts of North India.
• Lal Dora (extended): A historical categorization of village abadi areas; “extended Lal Dora” refers to expansions beyond original abadi limits, often with implications for building regulation.
• PWD-vetted valuation: Valuation conducted by a registered valuer and reviewed by the Public Works Department—common in acquisition to assess structures and verify site status.
• Project Affected Persons (PAPs): Individuals whose property and/or livelihood is adversely affected by a public project and who may be entitled to rehabilitation/relocation benefits per policy.
• “Doing business” requirement: A substantive eligibility condition under the GNCTD policy—actual operation of a business from the acquired shop at the relevant time must be proven for alternative shop allotment.

Practice Pointers

• For claimants:
  • Assemble contemporaneous, premises-specific evidence of business activity (licences, invoices, returns, bank statements, consumption data) covering the survey and acquisition period.
  • Ensure all documents correspond to the exact shop address/khasra/plot identifiers.
  • If surveys note closure, promptly seek clarification or rectification from PWD/valuers and consider appropriate legal challenge (including a Section 18 reference) within limitation.
• For authorities:
  • Maintain robust, well-documented surveys with dated photographic evidence and occupant interactions where feasible.
  • Communicate adverse findings and referral pathways (e.g., PWD contact, statutory references) clearly and timely.
  • Apply the “doing business” criterion consistently and record reasons in rejection communications.

Conclusion

Surender Kumar v. GNCTD crystallizes an important interpretive rule for Delhi’s MRTS R&R regime: eligibility for an alternate shop is conditioned on proof that the claimant was “doing business” from the acquired premises at the relevant time. The Court’s careful reading of Clause 1(c), in harmony with the policy’s structure and purpose, rejects a title-based entitlement and reinforces livelihood-centric rehabilitation. On facts, the petitioner failed to demonstrate active business operations; official survey/valuation, electricity usage patterns, and document mismatches outweighed his assertions.

This judgment should guide both claimants and administrators. For claimants, it underscores the evidentiary burden and the need for premises-specific, contemporaneous proof. For authorities, it validates the central role of objective survey and valuation records in determining eligibility. In the broader legal landscape, the decision affirms that rehabilitation benefits are not duplicative compensation for ownership but targeted instruments for those whose businesses or residences were actually disrupted by public projects.