Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Amlesh Sharma - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 36 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2914, 10442, 10444, 20904, 23819, 25868, 25869, 25870, 25884, 26495, 29121, 25885, 38063, 38289, 39643, 43944-46 of 2021, 3172, 3455, 5641, 5642, 5803, 5865, 7745-7746 of 2022, Civil Suit (OS) No. 323, 518, 520, 521, 546, 552, 575 of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, Arun Birbal, Advocate, Sonia Singhani, Advocate, Sanjay Singh, Advocate, Vidhi Gupta, Advocate, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, Arun Panwar, Advocate, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Advocate, Sampika Biswal, Advocate, Shambhavi Kala, Advocate, Krishan Gopal Chhokar, Advocate, R.K. Sinha, Advocate, Mini Pushkarna, Advocate, Khushboo Nahar, Advocate, Latika Malhotra, Advocate, Shikha Baisoya, Advocate, Sonia Singhania, Advocate, Vidhi Gupta, Advocate, Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate, Nitin Jain, Advocate, Vishal Chauhan, Advocate, Shivya Sharma, Advocate, Harshil Gupta, Advocate, Himanshu Chauhan, Advocate, R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate, Vipul Gaur, Advocate, Rohit Kishan Naagpal, Advocate, Dipanshu Gaba, Advocate, Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate

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 accommodation to slum dwellers upon eviction.

Headnote:
Unauthorized Occupants - Redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir Premises - Religious Premises Act, 1998, Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia and Ors., ajay Maken v. Union of India - Summary of Acts and Sections: Religious Premises Act, 1998, Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia and Ors., ajay Maken v. Union of India - The court discussed the provisions of the Religious Premises Act, 1998, and cited the cases of Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia and Ors., and ajay Maken v. Union of India to emphasize the distinction between unauthorized occupants of religious premises and normal tenants, and the state's obligation to provide alternative accommodation to slum dwellers upon eviction. The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles established in these acts and cases, which guided the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the consideration of rehabilitation for slum dwellers.
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the unauthorized occupation of the Kalkaji Mandir premises and the need for redevelopment. It emphasized the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the consideration of rehabilitation for slum dwellers.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that unauthorized occupants of religious premises and slum dwellers do not have legal rights to occupy the premises and emphasized the need for their eviction. It also considered the state's obligation to provide alternative accommodation to slum dwellers upon eviction.
Issues: Unauthorized occupation of religious premises, eviction of unauthorized occupants, rehabilitation of slum dwellers, and redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principles established in the Religious Premises Act, 1998, and the cases of Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia and Ors., and ajay Maken v. Union of India, which guided the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the consideration of rehabilitation for slum dwellers.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to undertake a survey of the Kalkaji Mandir premises, evict unauthorized occupants, and consider rehabilitation for slum dwellers. It also scheduled a meeting to discuss the vacation of premises and the proposed redevelopment plan.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - 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, 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021 and 24th 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 4 th 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 maladministration 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 e