Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh Sharma – Respondent
FAO 36 of 2021 & CM APPLs.2914 of 2021, 10442 of 2021, 10444 of 2021, 20904 of 2021, 23819 of 2021, 25868 of 2021, 25869 of 2021, 25870 of 2021, 25884 of 2021, 25885 of 2021, 26495 of 2021, 29121 of 2021, 38063 of 2021, 38289 of 2021, 39643 of 2021, 43944-46 of 2021, 3172 of 2022, 3455 of 2022, 5641 of 2022, 5642 of 2022, 5803 of 2022, 5865 of 2022, 7745 of 2022, 13472 of 2022, 16153 of 2022, 17039 of 2022, 18207 of 2022, 18247 of 2022, 18248 of 2022, 21768 of 2022, 21801 of 2022, 21802 of 2022, 21803 of 2022, 22125 of 2022, 23093 of 2022, 29624 of 2022, 32296 of 2022, 34552 of 2022, 34553 of 2022, 39754-55 of 2022, 40548 of 2022, 43723 of 2022, CM APPL. 52152 of 2022 With CM (M) 323 of 2021 & CM APPL. 14178 of 2021, 20945 of 2021, 20949 of 2021, 40269 of 2021, CONT.CAS(C) 614 of 2021, RFA 413 of 2021, CS (OS) 2499 of 2010, CS (OS) 511 of 2021, CS (OS) 526 of 2021 & I.A. 7511 of 2022, CS (OS) 527 of 2021 & I.As.1717-18 of 2022, CS (OS) 533 of 2021 & I.As.1721-22 of 2022, CS (OS) 535 of 2021 & I.A. 7552 of 2022, CS (OS) 538 of 2021 & I.As.1725-26 of 2022, CS (OS) 539 of 2021 & I.As. 9063 of 2022, 9064 of 2022, CS (OS) 540 of 2021 & I.A. 7940 of 2022, CS (OS) 541 of 2021 & I.As.1723-24 of 2022, CS (OS) 542 of 2021 & I.As. 9031 of 2022, 9032 of 2022, CS (OS) 544 of 2021 & I.As.1719-20 of 2022, CS (OS) 545 of 2021, CS (OS) 547 of 2021 & I.As.1715-16 of 2022, CS (OS) 554 of 2021 & I.As. 9061 of 2022, 9062 of 2022, CS (OS) 579 of 2021 & I.As. 9981 of 2022, 9982 of 2022 & CS (OS) 55 of 2022, I.As.12299 of 2022, 12300 of 2022, 12341-42 of 2022, 19288 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Sanjay Singh & Ms. Sonia Singhania, Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate, Ms. Samapika Biswal, Advocates, and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates for Ld. Administrator.
Mr. Luv Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr. Ritank, Advocates for SDMC.
Mr. Satish Sahai, Preeti Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj, Ms. Garima Anand & Mr. Nitin Panwar, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Advocate, Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocates for 19 shopkeepers.
Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai and Mr. Kaoliangpov Kamei, Advs for Petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jain & Mr. Yogit Kamat, Dr. Charu Wali Khanna and Mr. Dharmendra Baghel, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Advocates for R-58(iii).
Mr. Ankur Kashyap & Mr. Aditya Panda, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates, for R-1a, b, c, d, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Rajmangal Kumar Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra & Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Goonmeet Singh, Architect, Mr. Rajeev M. Roy and Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SHO.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's emphasis on collaboration between architects for the redevelopment plan and the orderly access for devotees by removing street vendors from the Mandir's periphery.
Headnote:
Redevelopment - Kalkaji Mandir - [No specific act section referenced] - The court directed the baridaars/pujaris and their Architect to work together with the Court-appointed Architect to prepare a joint redevelopment plan, and also instructed the two Architects to identify their respective responsibilities and place the final division of responsibilities before the Court. The Court also granted the shopkeepers one last opportunity to approach the ld. Administrator and take possession of the shops after giving undertakings to deposit the Tehbazari directed by the Court. Additionally, the Court ordered the removal of street vendors from the periphery of the Mandir to ensure orderly access for devotees.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir, including the demarcation of responsibilities between architects and the removal of street vendors from the Mandir's periphery.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the architects to collaborate on a joint redevelopment plan and identify their respective responsibilities. It also granted the shopkeepers a final opportunity to take possession of the shops and ordered the removal of street vendors to ensure orderly access for devotees.
Issues: Redevelopment plan, shopkeepers' possession of temporary shops, removal of street vendors from the Mandir's periphery.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized collaboration between architects for the redevelopment plan and granted a final opportunity to shopkeepers to take possession of the shops. Additionally, the Court ordered the removal of street vendors to ensure orderly access for devotees.
Final Decision: The final decision includes directing the architects to collaborate on a joint redevelopment plan, granting the shopkeepers a final opportunity to take possession of the shops, and ordering the removal of street vendors from the Mandir's periphery.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. 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.
Redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir
3. On 9th September, 2022, the Court had viewed the presentations prepared in respect of the redevelopment plan of the Kalkaji Mandir by the Architect appointed by the Court- Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, as also by the Architect on behalf of Baridaars and Purjaris- Ms. Himanshi Kaushik. After perusing the plans presented by both the architects, the Court had passed the following order:
15. This Court has viewed the presentations made by both the Architects and has perused the two development plans. Some of the suggestions made by the baridaars/pujaris can also be incorporated by the Court-appointed Architect. Accordingly, it is directed that the baridaars/pujaris and their Architect - Ms. Kaushik, may work together with Mr. Chauhan and prepare a joint redevelopment plan, after taking into account the suggestions of the baridaars/pujaris and integrating the same into the redevelopment plan which has been prepared by Mr. Chauhan. The joint redevelopment plan shall be finalized in coordination with the ld. Administrator. Let the said joint redevelopment plan be placed before this Court, on the next date of hearing.
4. The Court has also perused the 10th Report of the ld. Administrator dated 11th February, 2023. The report highlights that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Court, the various meetings have been held between the Mr. Chauhan and Ms. Kaushik. Mr. Chauhan submits that he has held three meetings with the Architect - Ms. Kaushik who has put forward her views on behalf of the baridaars.
5. From the submissions made by the parties and the Report of the ld. Administrator, it appears that there would have to be some demarcation and division of the work to be executed in the Kalkaji Mandir between both the Architects. Accordingly, let the two Architects identify their respective responsibilities and place the final division of responsibilities before this Court by the next date of hearing. If the two Architects need any assistance in the resolution of any issues, they are free to meet with the ld. Administrator.
6. The meetings between the two Architects shall be held by 10th March, 2023 and any further dates as may be agreed. Thereafter, a joint proposal shall be placed by both the Architects before the Court clearly delineating their respective responsibilities.
7. Both the Architects shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
Use of temporary shops by the shopkeepers
8. The latest report of the ld. Administrator notes that the temporary shops have been lying vacant since November, 2022. The Report further states that a majority of the shopkeepers have expressed inability to pay the Tehbazari fixed by the Court for the small shops.
9. One last opportunity is granted by the Court to all the allottees of the various shops which have been temporarily constructed to approach the ld. Administrator and take possession of the shops after giving undertakings to deposit the Tehbazari directed by this Court.
10. In case any of the allottees does not wish to take the allotment of the shop, orders would be passed for cancellation of their allotments on the next date of hearing. This shall be the last opportunity to all the allottees to approach the ld. Administrator and to do the needful.
Removal of shopkeepers from the periphery of the Mandir
11. On the last date of hearing, the Court was apprised that for the beautification of the periphery of the Kalkaji Mandir, hawkers on the periphery of the Mandir would have to be removed. Out of those, 51 street vendors stated to be registered with SDMC under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 would have to be moved to a designated place.
12. In view of the subm
