Back
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, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2914, 10442, 10444, 20904, 23819, 25868, 25869, 25870, 25884, 25885, 26495, 29121, 38063, 38289, 39643, 43944, 43945, 43946 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 323, 575 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 14178, 20945, 20949, 40269 of 2021, CONT.CAS(C) No. 2499 of 2010, 527, 533, 538, 541, 544, 547, 614, 674 of 2021
Decided On : 14-01-2022
Kalkaji Mandir - Kalkaji Mandir Redevelopment Fund - [No specific act-section referred]
Fact of the Case:
The court heard matters pertaining to the Kalkaji Mandir and received a detailed report from the administrator containing recommendations for redevelopment, including contributions from stakeholders, temporary shop construction, and possession handover.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the submission of reports on amounts deposited by shopkeepers, opening of a redevelopment fund account, and issuance of communications by concerned authorities. It also issued notices to non-compliant parties and adjourned related suits.
Issues: Redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir, shopkeeper contributions, possession handover, and fund management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for stakeholder contributions, proper fund management, and compliance with redevelopment directives.
Final Decision: The court directed various actions to facilitate the redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir and adjourned related suits.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
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. In terms of order dated 21st December, 2021, the report of the Ld. administrator has been received. The same is detailed in nature. By way of the said report, the ld. administrator has submitted his recommendations, after discussions with the baridaars, the shopkeepers, as also the various governmental authorities. Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, the architect and his team have also been involved in the said deliberations. The broad recommendations of the ld. administrator have been given in paragraph 65 of the report, which has been extracted below:
'65. The directions being sought from this Hon'ble High Court are being summarized herein below:
(i) Pursuant to the meeting with the civic agencies of 07.01.2022, a letter dated 07.01.2022 has been issued to DDa inter alia seeking their no-objection, which is presently pending. accordingly, this Hon'ble High Court may also be pleased to direct the DDa to permit this temporary construction upon such terms and conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
(ii) The Baridaars have submitted that they are willing to contribute to the re-development of the Mandir premises on the basis of the estimate submitted by the Ld. architect. They have further submitted that the said contribution should be fixed as a monthly amount to be collected from each Bari as determined by this Hon'ble High Court. accordingly, this Hon'ble Court may direct the Baridaars to contribute Rs. 5 lakhs every month for a period of 1 year or Rs. 60 lakhs as one-time payment for the creation of the temporary shops/kiosks at the 33 Mandir premises, as also directed in order dated 21.12.2021 of this Hon'ble High Court. additionally, it was also brought to the notice of the undersigned that the shopkeepers had deposited sums in various Courts and the Pujaris have not accepted the said amounts since they disputed the rights of the shopkeepers. These sums can be used for the management of the Temple and construction of the temporary shops/kiosks.
(iii) With respect to the tehbazari for the temporary shops/kiosks, Rs. 5 lakhs per month for a temporary shop in the Ram Piyao Site and Rs. 1 lakh per month for a temporary shop in the Market Way Passage may accordingly be fixed as tehbazari for the temporary shops at the respective sites or as may be ordered by this Hon'ble Court. additionally, Rs. 15,000/- per month may be used as a yardstick for determining the price for the kiosks subject to bidding.
(iv) as the undertakings that have been submitted are in the process of scrutiny and verification, a final list with the names and details of the shopkeepers who are eligible to be allotted the temporary shops and kiosks at the concerned Sites may be submitted to the Hon'ble High Court. 34 In the interim period, relevant contractors may be engaged to begin the creation of the temporary structures at the Kalkaji Mandir premises subject to collection of the security deposit from the confirmed applicants, Baridaar contribution and amounts offered to be deposited by shopkeepers towards tehbazari in district courts.
(v) Mr. Radhey Shyam, Shopkeeper of Shop No. 1 named 'Kalkamai Ke Prasad Ki Kadami Dukan' has not removed his articles and belongings from the said shop which is adjacent to the Bhawan of the Mandir. The Hon'ble High Court may also be pleased to pass appropriate directions to Mr. Radhey Shyam, Shopkeeper of Shop No. 1 named 'Kalkamai Ke Prasad Ki Kadami Du
AI
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 emphasizes proactive measures against encroachment on religious premises, directing authorities to erect a boundary wall and manage shopkeeper licenses to ensure compliance and community welfar....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the erection of a boundary wall to prevent encroachments and address concerns related to the redevelopment of the K....
Timely vacating of premises for re-development is crucial to facilitate the cleaning and re-development of the Mandir premises.
Court ensures participatory redevelopment process for community stakeholders while directing eviction of unauthorized occupants and considering rehabilitation under public housing schemes.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for ongoing progress in the demarcation process, proper placement of street vendors, resolution of redevelopment issues, and conducting a ....
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.
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
