Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Neeta Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma – Respondent
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.
Unauthorized Occupants of Jhuggis and Dharamshalas
3. Further to the previous order dated 7th March, 2022, a meeting has been held between the officials of DDa, DUSIB, SDMC and the DCP, South East Delhi, along with their respective counsels. Further to the said meeting held on 11th March, 2022 in the office of the Vice Chairman, DDa, a report has been filed. as per the said report:
(i) There are 42 jhuggis still in occupation in the Kalkaji Mandir premises, which are occupied by 142 persons.
(ii) Insofar as Dharamshalas are concerned, there are a total of 46 occupants both inside and outside the Dharamshalas.
4. as already elaborated upon in the previous orders, all these occupants are unauthorized occupants and are liable to be evicted from the Kalkaji Mandir premises in order for the redevelopment to take place.
5. Considering that all the occupants may not have adequate financial means, a proposal was directed to be placed on record for further directions as to the manner in whi
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 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.
Pujaris lack individual rights to use temple-owned properties for personal gain as determined by past decrees, emphasizing their role for temple service amidst mandated redevelopment.
Unauthorized occupation of religious premises is illegal; the Court mandates removal to ensure redevelopement for public safety.
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 ....
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....
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.
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
