Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Neeta Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma – Respondent
ORDER
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.
3. Vide previous order dated 27th September, 2021, Ms. Manmeet Arora was appointed as Assistant to the ld. Administrator. The relevant paragraph of the said order is set out below:
'107. The ld. Administrator shall be assisted by Ms. Manmeet Arora, who has been appointed as the Local Commissioner by this Court in these cases, from time to time, and has submitted various reports on the condition of the Kalkaji Mandir. The ld. Administrator may appoint a Secretary-cum Treasurer to assist him in carrying out his mandate and day-to-day functioning.'
4. The said ld. Counsel who had been appointed as the Assistant to the ld. Administrator, has since been elevated as a Judge of this Court. Accordingly, Ms. Samapika Biswal, ld. Counsel who has been working with the erstwhile counsel, Ms. Arora, and who has also been assisting the ld. Administrator on a continuous basis and appearing before the Court on behalf of the ld. Administrator, is appointed as the Assistant to the ld. Admini
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 ensures participatory redevelopment process for community stakeholders while directing eviction of unauthorized occupants and considering rehabilitation under public housing schemes.
The court ruled on the necessity of redevelopment of temple premises while ensuring the rights of pujaris and addressing grievances of unauthorized occupants.
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 established that unlawful occupants of public premises must be evicted for safety during religious gatherings, ensuring proper relocation options are provided yet not favoring unauthorized ....
Unauthorized occupation of religious premises is illegal; the Court mandates removal to ensure redevelopement for public safety.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the court to direct eviction and provide rehabilitation options for unauthorized occupants, emphasizing the need for expedited imp....
Eviction of unauthorized occupants from temple premises is upheld while ensuring rehabilitation under specific schemes, and rights of female heirs to offerings and puja sewa require future adjudicati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between unauthorized occupants of religious premises and normal tenants, and the state's obligation to provide alternative accommod....
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
