Point of Law: Applicants are directed to send their representations to the DDA and DUSIB collectively, so that a decision can be taken in this regard by the said authorities.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are part heard matters.

FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25868/2021, 25869/2021, 25870/2021, 25884/2021, 26495/2021, 29121/2021, 25885/2021, 43944-46/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022, 5642/2022, 38063/2021, 38289/2021, 39643/2021, 5803/2022, 5865/2022, 7745-46/2022

3. Pursuant to the previous order dated 2nd March, 2022, Mr. Manish Gupta, Vice Chairman, DDA, Ms. Garima Gupta, CEO, DUSIB, Ms. Esha Pandey, DCP, South East Delhi, and Mr. Gyanesh Bharti, Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation have all joined the proceedings.

4. The redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir premises is to take place, however this Court's interaction with the ld. Administrator as also the Architect and the other assisting counsels to the ld. Administrator, has revealed that certain jhuggi dwellers and some Dharamshala occupants have not yet vacated the premises.

5. Vide previous orders of this Court dated 27th September, 2021, 7 th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021 and 24 th December, 2021, it was made amply clear that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the Mandir premises can remain in possession.

6. The relevant extract of the order dated 27th September, 2021 is as under:

"94. The Supreme Court has time and again held that no unauthorized constructions or encroachments shall take place in the name of religious places. In Union of India v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 62, has taken cognizance of this menace and directed State Governments and Union Territories to take appropriate action in an expeditious manner. The Supreme Court held: "As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In respect of the unauthorized construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible."

95. Recently, in Harbhajan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3674/2009, decided on 4th December 2019), the Supreme Court was dealing with tenants who were in occupation of shops located in Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. There were no formal tenancy agreements in favour of the tenants. The Religious Premises Act, 1998, dealing with eviction of unauthorized occupants from premises belonging to religious institutions, provided for a summary procedure for evicting unauthorised occupants from premises belonging to religious institutions. The legality of the said provision was challenged on the ground that there was no intelligible differentia between 'normal tenants' who were protected tenants and tenants of religious institutions. In this context, the Supreme Court affirmed the position that unauthorised occupants of the premises of a religious institution would form a separate class. The finding of the Division Bench of the High Court, which held that the public at large has an inherent interest in the "religious institutions" which were prone to misadministration and mismanagement, was upheld. It also observed that any person who is in occupation of the premises belonging to a religious institution without a valid allotment, lease or grant is to be treated as an "unauthorised occupant". The Supreme Court held that:

"As noticed above, valid grants, leases and allotments are not construed and treated as unauthorised occupation. It is only when the terms of the grant, lease or allotment are not adhered to or have been determined or the period of allotment, lease or grant as fixed has come to an end, that the person in occupation is treated to be in unauthorised occupation. This is a precondition which confers the right on the religious institution to seek eviction of a person in unaut