SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) THE four writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regularisation of what they claims to be tehbazari rights. It is stated that petitioners were squatting in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar prior to 1982 when a survey was conducted in December,1982 and about 135 squatters were found to be eligible including the petitioners. Petitioners are stated to have been rehabilitated in a lane between post office and Alankar cinema in April, 1985 from where they were removed and rehabilitated behind MCD Hospital, Lajpat Nagar. In august, 1986 the petitioners are stated to have been allotted squatting site at IInd Block Pushpa Market, lajpat Nagar and continued there till May,1996. In december,1996, due to certain bomb blast in the area, petitioners were removed. The petitioners claim to have filed a writ petition in 1999 before the Hon ble supreme Court for allowing them to squat at their original site in Pushpa Market/central Market which writ petitions were disposed of on 5. 5. 2806 with liberty to approach the appropriate court. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that the respondent filed a list of the eligible squatters in terms of the chopra Committee recommendations which had been appointed to scrutinise such cases and the petitioners case was stated to have been rejected. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS aggrieved by rejection of their claims for regularly squatting submit that this is not in conformity with the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sodan Singh and others Vs. N. D. M. C and others 1989 (4) SCC 155 . It is also contended that the respondent s decision in refusing to accept tehbazari charges from petitioners since 1994 is in violation of the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of india. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the MCD, it is stated that in pursuance to directions passed by hon ble Supreme Court in Gainda Ram and ors. Vs. MCD and others 1998 1 SCC 188 the eligibility of the squatters was considered by R. R. Chopra Committee which rejected the cases of the petitioners. It is further stated that in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court contained in the order dated 5. 5. Vs. MCD and others 1998 1 SCC 188 the eligibility of the squatters was considered by R. R. Chopra Committee which rejected the cases of the petitioners. It is further stated that in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court contained in the order dated 5. 5. 2000 in CW No. 573/99, the petitioners were held to be not covered under the scheme and thus their cases were rejected by Chopra committee. ( 5 ) IN so far as survey of 1982 is concerned, it is stated that pursuance to the survey scheme of open tehbazari consisting of grant of permission to squat on ear-marked spot of the area of 6"x4" was evolved which was finalised by Hon ble Supreme Court in Sudan Singh s case (supra) and in Gainda Ram s case (supra ). As per the scheme only squatters who were squatting from 1976 to 1982 and whose names appear in the survey conducted on 23. 12. 1982 were entitled to allotment of tehabazari site. The second category were of persons who had started squatting in the year 1982 onwards. Due publicity was given inviting applications from eligible squatters which were examined and all those who were rejected. All those who had not applied under scheme had no right to squat. In pursuance to the directions issued by Supreme Court on 1. 5. 1997, the MCD was directed to review all the cases of squatters found eligible or ineligible and those who had failed to apply under the scheme and only claimed hawking licence under Section 420 of the DMC Act, 1957. The persons who had not applied were not covered under the order dated 1. 5. 1997. The persons aggrieved were permitted to file appeal before the R. C. Chopra Committee which were not subject to further Challenge before any Court. ( 6 ) IT is thus stated that the present petitioners had not applied in the year 1982 fur allotment of site though they filed appeals before the R. C. Chopra committee. Since the petitioners had not applied in the year 1982, their appeals were held not to be maintainable. ( 7 ) IT is further stated that no squatters are being permitted in Pushpa Market which has been declared a non-squatting zone. Since the petitioners had not applied in the year 1982, their appeals were held not to be maintainable. ( 7 ) IT is further stated that no squatters are being permitted in Pushpa Market which has been declared a non-squatting zone. It is also stated that petitioners approached Corporation for allowing them to squat till finalisation of review scheme and on compassionate ground the petitioners were permitted to squat near alankar Cinema. It is specifically denied that petitioners have been squatting in Pushpa Market. ( 8 ) IT is also stated that respondent-Corporation has been taking action against un-authorised squatting. ( 9 ) THE Traders Association had also filed an application for intervention being CM No. 8900/2000 which was allowed. They seek to bring on record the un-authorised squatting by the petitioners who had been erected stalls causing acute congestion and traffic problem and said persons are stated to have encroached even the green area including non-squatting area of the park. Photographs have been filed along with the said application. ( 10 ) I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. ( 11 ) THE petitioners admittedly did not apply under the 1992 Scheme and their appeals were thus held to be not maintainable by the R. C. Chopra Committee. It is also relevant to note that no squatting is permissible in Pushpa Market which has been declared a non-squatting zone for which the relevant orders have been filed. The petitioners, however, continued to occupy areas near Alankar Cinema. It is relevant to note that there is no squatting on area of 4"x6" but a large area has been covered by erection of tarpaulin as apparent from the photographs. Open areas have been encroached upon and the business being carried on is of the nature of shops under tarpaulin. There can be no doubt that the same would cause grave inconvenience to the shopkeepers who are in regular occupation of the shops as also for the persons visiti. ng the market. ( 12 ) THE question to be considered is whether these petitioners have any right to squat. In my considered view the answer is in the negative. Other than stating that they have been squatting in various areas from time to time, the petitioner shave failed to establish any such right. ng the market. ( 12 ) THE question to be considered is whether these petitioners have any right to squat. In my considered view the answer is in the negative. Other than stating that they have been squatting in various areas from time to time, the petitioner shave failed to establish any such right. The review exercise is stated to be in progress in pursuance to the order dated 1. 5. 1997 and the petitioners have been permitted to squat near alankar Cinema pending finalisation of review exercise since at the relevant time the sites will have to be made available to the eligible squatters. It was also stated that these petitioners have been removed from their original places and have falsely stated that they are squatting at Pushpa Market though the same is non-squatting area. In case any of the petitioners are found eligible under the review exercise, they will be entitled to the rights as granted to such persons. ( 13 ) IN view of aforesaid, I find no merit in, the writ petitions which are dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.