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.
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 beha
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 ....
The court ruled on the necessity of redevelopment of temple premises while ensuring the rights of pujaris and addressing grievances of unauthorized occupants.
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.
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.
Court emphasized the authority of the Administrator in managing religious premises, focusing on the removal of unauthorized occupants and the proper structuring of redevelopment plans.
Unauthorized occupation of religious premises is illegal; the Court mandates removal to ensure redevelopement for public safety.
Court ensures participatory redevelopment process for community stakeholders while directing eviction of unauthorized occupants and considering rehabilitation under public housing schemes.
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....
Applicants are directed to send their representations to the DDA and DUSIB collectively, so that a decision can be taken in this regard by the said authorities.
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.
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
