Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 36 of 2021, CONT.CAS(C) No. 614 of 2021, Civil Suit (OS) No. 2499 of 2010, 527, 533, 538, 541, 544, 547, 588 of 2021, 55, 56, 57 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2914, 10442, 10444, 20904, 23819, 25868, 25869, 25870, 25884, 25885, 26495, 29121, 38063, 38289, 39643, 43944-43946 of 2021, 3172, 3455, 5641, 5642, 5803, 5865, 7745, 13472, 16153 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 323, 575 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 14178 of 2021, 20945 of 2021, 20949 of 2021, 40269, 43796 of 2021, I.A. No. 1715-1716, 1717-1718, 1719-1720, 1721-1722, 1723-1724, 1725-1726 of 2022
Decided On : 31-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
R. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate, Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, Arun Birbal, Advocate, Sanjay Singh, Advocate, Sonia Mann, Advocate, Sonia Singhani, Advocate, Vidhi Gupta, Advocate, Siddharth Panda, Advocate, Ritank Kumar, Advocate, Sangeeta Bharti, Advocate, Samapika Biswal, Advocate, Shambhavi Kala, Advocate, Kartikeya Sharma, Advocate, Mini Pushkarna, Advocate, Latika Malhotra, Advocate, Khushboo Nahar, Advocate, Nitin Jain, Advocate, Vishal Chauhan, Advocate, Harshil Gupta, Advocate, Himanshu Chauhan, Advocate, Shiuya Sharma, Advocate, Rohit Kishan Naagpal, Advocate, Dipanshu Gaba, Advocate, U.M. Tripathi, Advocate, Birendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate, D.K. Singhal, Advocate, Kamal Mehta, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to order the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the allocation of temporary spaces for commercial activities in the Kalkaji Mandir premises for the purpose of maintaining the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner.

Headnote:
Eviction - Kalkaji Mandir - [No specific act section referenced] - The court directed the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and occupants of dharamshalas from the Kalkaji Mandir premises. The court also directed the erection of temporary shops and kiosks for the purpose of Navratras. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees. The court ordered the removal of malba, levelling of the land, and all other unwanted garbage from the Kalkaji Mandir premises. It also directed the allocation of temporary table spaces for selling articles and wares during Navratras. The court further directed the erection of temporary shops and kiosks in the land belonging to the DDa, including larger shops upon payment of higher construction cost and license fee.
Fact of the Case:

The case pertains to the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and occupants of dharamshalas from the Kalkaji Mandir premises and the erection of temporary shops and kiosks for the purpose of Navratras.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the erection of temporary shops and kiosks were necessary for the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir and for maintaining the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees.
Issues: The main issues were the eviction of unauthorized occupants, the allocation of temporary table spaces, and the erection of temporary shops and kiosks for the purpose of Navratras.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need for redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir and the paramount importance of maintaining the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees.
Final Decision: The court directed the eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and occupants of dharamshalas, the removal of malba, levelling of the land, and all other unwanted garbage from the Kalkaji Mandir premises. It also directed the allocation of temporary table spaces for selling articles and wares during Navratras and the erection of temporary shops and kiosks in the land belonging to the DDa, including larger shops upon payment of higher construction cost and license fee.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - 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 22nd March, 2022, eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and occupants of dharamshalas was directed, and directions were also issued for allocation of temporary tables for shops to be set up during the Navratra period. Pursuant to the said order, this Court has been informed that an SLP being SLP No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. was preferred by some occupants of dharamshalas challenging the order dated 27th September, 2021, and subsequent orders passed in the present appeal. In the said SLP, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25th March, 2022, has directed as under:

'1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.

2. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

3. We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance.

4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.'

4. Ms. Biswal, ld. Counsel appearing for the ld. administrator, also submits that three LPas being LPa No.170/2022 titled Sohan Lal Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, LPa No.171/2022 titled Rahul Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., and LPa No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj have been filed by the occupants of the dharamshalas, against various orders of this Court, being orders dated 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021, 21st December, 2021, 14th January, 2022, 1st February, 2022, 15th February, 2022 and 2nd March, 2022, 15th March, 2022 and 22nd March, 2022. Out of these three LPas, ld. Counsel submits that the order dated 29th March, 2022 has been passed in LPa No.172/2022. The said order reads as under:

'3. The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the orders dated 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021, 21st December, 2021, 14th January, 2022, 1st February, 2022, 15th February, 2022 and 2nd March, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in FaO 36/2021, CM(M) 323/2021, CM (M) 575/2021 and CONT.CaS (C) 614/2021.

4. When this appeal came up before this Court notice was issued in the appeal to the respondents as also to the SDMC, Delhi Jal Board, DDa, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner of Police as the five authorities were represented before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was directed to file amended memo of parties and the matter is now listed on 22nd april, 2022 along with two similar connected appeals. Thereafter the appellant filed the present application seeking stay of the orders dated 15th March, 2022 and 22nd March, 2022 to the extent directions for eviction of the occupants of the Dharamshala were issued by the learned Single Judge.

XXX

10. as noted above, the order dated 15th March, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge permits one representative of the each family of the occupants to meet the learned administrator. The said meeting cannot have any other purpose except hearing the representatives so that they can express their views which will be duly considered by the learned administrator.

11. In view of the fact that two important facts are undisputed in this appeal, firstly, ownership rights in the property and secondly, that the re-development of the Kalkaji Mandir is essential which is not disputed by any of the parties, it would be appropriate to give fair chance to the appellant/ applicant to appear before the learned administrator to raise his concern. The learned administrator is thus requested to give personal hearin