SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Neeta Bhardwaj and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma – Respondent
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, 43944-46/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022, 5642/2022, 5803/2022, 5865/2022, 7745/2022, 13472/2022, 16153/2022, 17039/2022, 18207/2022, 18247/2022, 18248/2022, 21768/2022, 21801/2022, 21802/2022, 21803/2022, 22125/2022, 23093/2022, 29624/2022, 32296/2022, 34552/2022, 34553/2022, 39754-55/2022, 40548/2022, 43723/2022, 53179/2022, 876/2023, 14509/2023, 15812/2023, 15813/2023, 13658/2023, 22230/2023, CM (M) 323/2021, CM APPL. 14178/2021, 20945/2021, 20949/2021, 40269/2021, CONT. CAS(C) 614/2021, CS (OS) 240/2023, CS (OS) 2499/2010, CS (OS) 511/2021, CS (OS) 526/2021, I.A. 7511/2022, CS (OS) 527/2021, I.As.1717-18/2022, CS (OS) 533/2021, I.As.1721-22/2022, CS (OS) 535/2021, I.A. 7552/2022, CS (OS) 538/2021, I.As.1725-26/2022, CS (OS) 539/2021, I.As. 9063/2022, 9064/2022, CS (OS) 540/2021, I.A. 7940/2022, CS (OS) 541/2021, I.As.1723-24/2022, CS (OS) 542/2021, I.As. 9031/2022, 9032/2022, CS (OS) 544/2021, I.As.1719-20/2022, CS (OS) 545/2021, CS (OS) 547/2021, I.As.1715-16/2022, CS (OS) 554/2021, I.As. 9061/2022, 9062/2022, CS (OS) 579/2021, I.As. 9981/2022, 9982/2022, CS (OS) 55/2022 and I.As.12299/2022, 12300/2022, 12341-42/2022, 19288/2022
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Sanjay Singh & Ms. Sonia Singhania, Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Ms. Samapika Biswal and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates for Ld. Administrator. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Amicus
Mr. Luv Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr. Ritank, Advs. for SDMC.
Mr. Thakur Sumit, Advocate.
Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate for 19 shopkeepers.
Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai and Mr. Kaoliangpov Kamei, Advs for Petitioner.
Mr. Prabhas Chandra, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Rajmangal Kumar
Mr. Goonmeet Singh, Architect.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SHO.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for Unregistered Vendors.
Ms. Himanshi Kaushik, Architect.
Mr. S. Sasibhushan, Advocate.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Vipul Gaur, Advocate.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate for DUSIB
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
Mr. Anuroop P S, Advocate
Mr. Aly Mirza and Mr. Parbhash Kumar, Advocates (M: 9899720945).
Mr. Aditya, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kumar Jha, Mr. Raghunath Pathak and Ms. Shivalika, Advocates
Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj and Ms. Garima Anand, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the heritage and religious sites from unauthorized construction and ensure stakeholder involvement in redevelopment plans.

Headnote:

Construction - Kalkaji Mandir - Delhi Development Act, 1957, Section 11A - Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The case involves construction activities on land adjoining the Kalkaji Mandir and Lotus Temple. The court was informed that the construction was being carried out by a third party to whom the land was leased by DDA. The court expressed concern as the demarcation process was not finalized, yet the DDA had entered into an arrangement with a third party and started construction immediately adjoining the Mandir.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the DDA or the contractor/licensee to cease construction on the land to ensure that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is not adversely affected. The court also directed DDA to place on record details of the land's usage and maintenance as a green area. The court appointed architect held a meeting with the Pujaris to discuss the redevelopment of the Mandir, and the court directed the filing of a joint proposal for the allocation of shops within the Mandir premises.

Issues: The issues revolved around the unauthorized construction on land adjoining the Kalkaji Mandir, the demarcation process, and the redevelopment plan for the Mandir. Disputes also arose regarding the ownership of the dharamshalas and the relocation of devtas/temples.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to protect the view of the Lotus Temple and ensure that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is not adversely affected. It also highlighted the importance of involving the stakeholders in the redevelopment plan and resolving disputes regarding ownership and relocation.

Final Decision: The court directed the cessation of construction on the land, sought details of the land's usage, and instructed the filing of a joint proposal for the allocation of shops within the Mandir premises. It also directed the demarcation of specific areas for dharamshalas and the relocation of devtas/temples.

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.

Construction activities on land adjoining to the Kalkaji Mandir & Lotus Temple

3. On the last date of hearing, it was brought to the attention of the Court that fresh construction and excavation was being done in the land adjoining the Kalkaji Mandir and the Lotus Temple. The Court was informed that the said activities were being carried out by a third party i.e M/s Eswara Kamdhenu Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. to whom the land in question was stated to have been leased by DDA. On the said date, certain photographs of the construction activities were also handed over to the Court. The Court had also directed DDA to place on record the nature of arrangement with the said third party carrying out construction on the land adjoining the Kalkaji Mandir and the Lotus Temple by 28th April, 2023.

4. Today, Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel, at the outset, submits that he has filed an affidavit on behalf of DDA, however, the same is not yet on record. A copy of the same has been handed over to the Court. As per the said affidavit, around 60 sites whose inventory was available with the Engineering/Horticulture Department of DDA were put on e-auction on 21st October, 2022 for the purposes of marriage, social, cultural and religious functions on a license fee basis.

5. Certain bids are stated to have been received and pursuant thereto, 23 open sites including the site called “DDA land adjoining green area at Kalkaji Mandir” admeasuring 9,000 sq. meters is stated to have been licensed out to M/s Eswara Kamdhenu Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 36 months starting from 1st November, 2022 on a monthly license fee of Rs. 28,91,120/-. The said site is stated to have been handed over on 28th December, 2022. The submission of DDA is that the land belongs to DDA and there is no embargo on using the same. Temporary structures are being erected by the said Licencee on the said land.

6. In the present matter relating to the Kalkaji Mandir, the Court is undertaking the exercise of demarcation of land as also the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir. The DDA has been a party in these proceedings right from inception. The construction which was recently commenced adjoining the Lotus Temple and the Kalkaji Mandir was brought to the notice of the Court on the last occasion. The Court had observed vide order dated 19th April 2023, that since demarcation was yet to be finalised, DDA could not have entered into an arrangement with a third party. The observations of the Court are extracted below:

“11. SDM Kalkaji, Mr. J.B. Kapil who is present in Court today submits that the demarcation process is underway and is taking some time because the revenue records are very old, dating back to 1900s and in Urdu language. He further submits that the said records are being translated. He further submits that the DDA has not extended any cooperation in demarcating the land, though they are in possession of records.

12. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners have also placed on record today certain photographs to show that fresh construction, excavation is being done in the land adjoining the Mandir by a third party to whom the said land is stated to have been leased by DDA. It is surprising that when the demarcation itself is not finalized, how the DDA has started developing the same.

13. The Court expresses enormous concern as DDA has been a party to these proceedings right from the inception and when the demarcation process is being undertaken for the redevelopment of the Mandir, suddenly, the DDA is stated to have entered into some arrangement with a third party and has started construction immediately adjoining the Mandir.”

7. Photographs/images of the construction being undertaken on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top