Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Neeta Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. 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, 25885/2021, 26495/2021, 29121/2021, 38063/2021, 38289/2021, 39643/2021, 43944/2021, 43945/2021 & 43946/2021
CM (M) 323/2021 & CM APPLs. 14178/2021, 20945/2021, 20949/2021, 40269/2021
CM (M) 575/2021 & CM APPL. 43796/2021
CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021
3. At the outset, Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in CS(OS) 556/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 9th December 2021, submits that he seeks a clarification in paragraph 61 of the said order. He submits that the plaintiffs in the said suit are Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabandhak Sudhar Committee, Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj, Ms. Rakhi and Ms. Rajni Gaur, however in the said order, it is recorded as Mr. Tarun Gaur. Accordingly, he seeks a clarification/rectification in respect thereof. Paragraph 61 shall
Timely vacating of premises for re-development is crucial to facilitate the cleaning and re-development of the Mandir premises.
The court affirms its jurisdiction in overseeing compliance with administrative directives regarding unauthorized occupation and emphasizes structured redevelopment for community benefit.
The central legal point established is the court's authority to direct stakeholder contributions, fund management, and compliance with redevelopment directives.
The court underscored the importance of cooperative redevelopment involving community contributions for timely management and safety of the temple premises.
Court ensures participatory redevelopment process for community stakeholders while directing eviction of unauthorized occupants and considering rehabilitation under public housing schemes.
The court affirmed its jurisdiction to comprehensively address management issues of a religious institution, emphasizing necessary actions against unauthorized occupants and ensuring compliance with ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of accommodating the interests of pujaris and baridaars in the redevelopment process and ensuring their active participation.
Court upheld the importance of managing and redeveloping temple premises while balancing the interests of stakeholders involved, ensuring proper representation and administration of the site.
The court ruled on the necessity of redevelopment of temple premises while ensuring the rights of pujaris and addressing grievances of unauthorized occupants.
Unauthorized occupation of religious premises is illegal; the Court mandates removal to ensure redevelopement for public safety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
