Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4872
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, 15813 of 2023 13658 of 2023, 22230 of 2023, 25196 of 2023, 27386 of 2023, 27387 of 2023, 28363 of 2023, 28558 of 2023, 28559 of 2023, 29981 of 2023, 31169 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
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 MCD.
Mr. Thakur Sumit, Advocate.
Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate, for 19 shopkeepers.
Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai and Mr. Kaoliangpov Kamei, Advocates, for Petitioner.
Mr. Prabhas Chandra, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, Advocate.
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 PS, Advocate.
Mr. Aly Mirza and Mr. Parbhash Kumar, Advocates.
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.
Mr. S. Ganesh Senior Advocate with Mr. R.R.Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advocate.
Mr. Manik Dogra, Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Mr. Rohit Bhagat and Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocates.
Mr. Lalit patwari and Mr. Shadiram Dy. Director.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to make decisions regarding the conduct of religious activities, land demarcation, and redevelopment plans in the interest of public convenience and urgency.
Headnote:
Kalkaji Mandir - Demarcation, Redevelopment Plan, Street Vendors - [CS (OS)-531/2021, FAO 36/2021] - The court discussed the demarcation of the land adjoining Kalkaji Mandir, the redevelopment plan, and the issue of street vendors. The court awarded the demarcation bid to M/s Measure Techno Services, supervised by a Committee, and expedited the process within two months. The court also directed the finalization of the redevelopment plan and permitted verified street vendors to sell their wares outside the Mandir premises.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to the Kalkaji Mandir, involving applications for conducting pooja sewa, intervention by the Bahai' House of Worship, and impleadment of a third-party contractor. The court also discussed the demarcation of the land, the redevelopment plan, and the issue of street vendors.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the fresh application for conducting pooja sewa, permitted the intervention of the Bahai' House of Worship, and impleaded the third-party contractor. The court awarded the demarcation bid, directed the finalization of the redevelopment plan, and permitted verified street vendors to sell their wares outside the Mandir premises. The court also raised further issues for urgent consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the permission for conducting pooja sewa, intervention by the Bahai' House of Worship, impleadment of the third-party contractor, demarcation of the land, finalization of the redevelopment plan, and the issue of street vendors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unique facts and circumstances of the case, the need to expedite the demarcation process, and the consensus on the redevelopment plan. The court also considered the convenience of the devotees and the urgent issues raised by the Administrator.
Final Decision: The final decision allowed the applications, awarded the demarcation bid, directed the finalization of the redevelopment plan, and permitted verified street vendors to sell their wares outside the Mandir premises. Further issues were listed for urgent consideration.
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.
I.A. 9648/2023 in CS (OS)-531/2021
3. This is a fresh application moved on behalf of Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Ms. Shashi Bala under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking permission to get the pooja sewa conducted at the Kalkaji Mandir during the monthly baari which is scheduled to commence from 26th August, 2023 to 25th September, 2023. Mr. Thakur Sumit, ld. Counsel, opposes the application and submits that he would like to file a reply to the application.
4. Let the reply be filed within two weeks.
5. List on 1st August, 2023 for hearing.
CM APPL. 28363/2023 (u/O I Rule 10 CPC) in FAO 36/2021
6. This is an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Bahai' House of Worship (a.k.a. Lotus Temple), Village: Bahapur, Kalkaji, New Delhi -19. Mr. S. Ganesh, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the interest of the Lotus Temple would be affected by the orders that may be passed by this Court. He places reliance upon the order dated 2nd May, 2023 passed by the Court and requests to be impleaded in the matter.
7. Considering the geographical proximity of the Kalkaji Mandir and the Lotus Temple as also the fact that there is a large tract of land in between these two places of worship, the Applicant is permitted to intervene in this matter so as to make submissions for the Court's consideration.
8. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 27386/2023 (u/o I Rule 10 CPC) & CM APPL. 27387/2023 (for vacation for stay) in FAO 36/2021
9. These are applications filed by one M/s Eswara Kamdhenu Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. which is a third-party contractor. It had entered into an agreement dated 30th December, 2022 with the DDA and was given possession of certain land proximate to the Kalkaji Mandir admeasuring 9,000 sq. meters on a license fee basis. It is the submission of the said Applicant that its interests are directly being affected by the order staying construction on the said land passed by this Court on 2nd May, 2023.
10. Without going into the averments made in the application for impleadment, on merits, since the said entity's interest would be directly affected by the present proceedings, M/s Eswara Kamdhenu Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. is impleaded as Respondent No.29 in the present petition.
11. Amended memo of parties be filed by the Appellant within 4 weeks.
12. M/s Eswara Kamdhenu Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. has also filed an application i.e., CM APPL. 27387/2023 seeking vacation of stay granted vide order dated 2nd May, 2023 passed by the Court. Issue notice.
13. Any parties affected by the construction being carried by the Respondent No.29 are permitted to file a reply within two weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks, thereafter.
14. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No.29 that a representation has been made by it to DDA for grant of an alternate area in lieu of the land in respect of which orders have been passed by the Court. Insofar as the said representation is concerned, it is up to the DDA to consider the same.
15. CM APPL. 27386/2023 is disposed of.
16. List CM APPL. 27387/2023 on 24th August, 2023.
Demarcation
17. 11th Report of the ld. Administrator highlights the status of the demarcation exercise carried out in 2012 in respect of the land adjoining Kalkaji Mandir and the fact that it could not be finalised due to the objections raised by DDA. On 19th April, 2023, SDM, Kalkaji who was present during the hearing, informed the Court that the process of demarcation of the mandir premises is underway.
18. Today, Mr. Anil Kumar, patwari, who is present in Court, submits that a tender was floated calling for bids by agencies, for conducting demarcation as requisite staff was not available within the patwari office. In response to the tender, the following bids were rece
