Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1370
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, 53179 of 2022, 876 of 2023, 14509 of 2023, 15812 of 2023 with CM (M) 323 of 2021 & CM Appls. 14178 of 2021, 20945 of 2021, 20949 of 2021, 40269 of 2021 etc.
Decided On : 19-04-2023
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, Advocates 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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for finalizing the master planning and demarcation, addressing unauthorized constructions and potential dangers, and ensuring transparency in arrangements with third parties.
Headnote:
Redevelopment - Kalkaji Mandir - Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 - [Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954] - The court discussed the division of work between the Court appointed architect and the architect of the pujaris, final concept of master planning, and demarcation of the Mandir premises. The court also addressed unauthorized constructions, encroachment, and the potential danger posed by a dilapidated Dharamshala. The Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 was referenced in the context of demarcation options and jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir, addressing issues such as division of work between architects, demarcation of the Mandir premises, unauthorized constructions, and the dilapidated state of a Dharamshala.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Court appointed architect to finalize the concept of master planning and to call a meeting for getting inputs from the pujaris. It also instructed the DDA to explain its arrangement with a third party carrying out construction near the Mandir and to provide relevant records for the demarcation process.
Issues: Division of work between architects, demarcation of Mandir premises, unauthorized constructions, dilapidated Dharamshala, and DDA's arrangement with a third party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for finalizing the master planning and demarcation, addressing unauthorized constructions and potential dangers, and ensuring transparency in arrangements with third parties.
Final Decision: The case was listed for further hearing on 2nd May, 2023 at 3.30pm.
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. Today, 11th Report of the ld. Administrator, has been placed on record. On the issue of redevelopment, multiple meetings are stated have taken place between the ld. Administrator, the Court appointed architect, and the architect of the pujaris in respect of the redevelopment plan of the Kalkaji Mandir. On 15th March, 2023 the Court had passed the following directions in respect of division of work between the Court appointed architect and the architect of the pujaris:
"9. Mr. Chauhan and Ms. Himanshi Kaushik, both the architects are present in the Court. They submit that within a period of four weeks, they will finalise the division of work between themselves and place the same on record.
10. The division of work will be placed on record by means of a table/chart by the next date of hearing. For the said purpose, if any further meetings are required, the same shall he coordinated by the two architects; irrespective of the presence of the parties. The meetings shall be held between the architects and the final agreed plan shall be put up."
4. As per the Report, a meeting took place between the ld. Administrator, the Court appointed architect and the pujaris' architect, and the pujaris on 15th April, 2023 at the office of the ld. Administrator to finalize the division of work. In the said report of the ld. Administrator, a chart prepared by the Court appointed architect in respect of division of work has been placed on record at page 33 as Annexure A. A perusal of the chart and the submissions made by the parties today shows that except qua the `Concept and Approvals' in relation to master planning, there is a broad agreement between both the architects.
5. Today, on behalf of certain pujaris the submission that has been made is that the architect on behalf of Mr. Vipul Gaur - M/s Earth Grove LLP is not representing all the pujaris. Ms. Garima Anand, ld. Counsel submits that the said 45 pujaris whom she is representing should also be permitted to give their inputs in respect of redevelopment of the Mandir.
6. The redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir has been pending for quite some time. From the reports of the ld. Administrator and the submissions made by ld. Counsels, it is evident that unauthorized constructions and encroachment in the Mandir premises have substantially been removed. Thus, the redevelopment process has to be started. The Court appointed Architect has already done considerable work on the redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir and a detailed presentation was made before the Court on 2nd March, 2022 and 7th March, 2022 in respect of the same. Inputs are stated to have also been given by M/s Earthgrow LLP in respect of redevelopment of the Mandir. The repeated meetings have resulted in consensus on several issues but certain issues remain outstanding.
7. In order to bring a closure to the finalization of the redevelopment, the following directions are passed:
i) Mr. Chauhan, the Court appointed architect, keeping in mind the suggestion and inputs given by M/s Earthgrow LLP, shall put his final concept of master planning before the Court on the next date of hearing.
ii) The said concept of master planning shall also be circulated to M/s Earthgrow LLP as also to Ms. Garima Anand, ld. Counsel.
iii) On the next date, a presentation shall be made in the Court by Mr. Chauhan and at that stage, if any of the pujaris have any inputs, the same shall be placed before the Court. The Court shall consider the said inputs and pass the final order on the concept of master planning of the Kalkaji Mandir which is to be followed for redevelopment.
8. Insofar as the remaining aspects of the division of work is concerned, once the master planning is finalized, the remaining responsibilit
