The court affirms its jurisdiction in overseeing compliance with administrative directives regarding unauthorized occupation and emphasizes structured redevelopment for community benefit.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 3- Issues of unauthorized occupation and encroachment in temple property - Court emphasizes the need for the removal of unauthorized constructions and to ensure compliance with civic regulations. A structured redevelopment plan for the Kalkaji Mandir premises was initiated, including arrangements for temporary shops. (Paras 3 to 17)

(B) Administrative law - Jurisdiction of the High Court in overseeing administrative actions - The court reiterates its authority in ensuring that administrative directives are observed and civic agencies fulfill their duties regarding unauthorized constructions and redevelopment. (Paras 4, 8, 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around the ongoing redevelopment efforts at the Kalkaji Mandir, with directives issued for the removal of unauthorized constructions by shopkeepers and residents by December 25, 2021. The court has also mandated a comprehensive redevelopment plan involving temporary shops and civic amenities.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the necessity for structured development and authorized the Administrator to collaborate with relevant parties to facilitate compliance and redevelopment.

Issues: The primary issues address the rights of occupants to remain in the temple premises and the appropriate administrative response to enforce lawful occupancy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed its supervisory jurisdiction over administrative actions and the establishment of procedures for redeveloping temple premises to improve access and facilities while adhering to civic regulations.

Result: The court ordered the completion of redevelopment tasks and further hearings scheduled.

Table of Content
1. clarification of parties involved in litigation. (Para 2 , 3)
2. removal of unauthorized occupation in mandir. (Para 4 , 5 , 8)
3. shopkeepers' request for extension denied. (Para 6 , 7)
4. plans for re-development of the mandir. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17)
5. final orders and scheduling of next hearings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28)
6. rights of adopted children and women in puja sewa. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part heard matters.

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, 43944/2021, 43945/2021 & 43946/2021

CM (M) 323/2021 & CM APPLs. 14178/2021, 20945/2021, 20949/2021, 40269/2021

CM (M) 575/2021 & CM APPL. 43796/2021

CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021

3. At the outset, Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in CS(OS) 556/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 9th December 2021, submits that he seeks a clarification in paragraph 61 of the said order. He submits that the plaintiffs in the said suit are Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabandhak Sudhar Committee, Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj, Ms. Rakhi and Ms. Rajni Gaur, however in the said order, it is recorded as Mr. Tarun Gaur. Accordingly, he seeks a clarification/rectification in respect thereof. Paragraph 61 shall stand rectified in terms pleaded. Ordered accordingly.

Removal of unauthorised occupation/construction in the Mandir premises

4. Vide last order dated 9th December 2021, this Court had directed the shopkeepers in the Mandir premises to give undertakings before the ld. Administrator of the Kalkaji Mandir, appointed by this Court. Upon the said undertaking being given, and verification in respect thereof being conducted, the shopkeepers were to be given reasonable time by the ld. Administrator for removal of their articles and belongings from the shops lying sealed. Upon the same being done, the SDMC and DDA, in cooperation with other civic agencies, were to remove all unauthorised constructions/encroachment by 25th December 2021.

5. Further in respect of those persons residing within the Mandir premises in the Dharamshala or otherwise, this Court had directed the vacation of the said residences on or before 25th December 2021.

6. On a query from the Court as to the status on-ground at the Mandir and developments in respect of the directions given on 9th December 2021 by this Court, Ms. Shambhavi Kala, ld. Counsel appearing for the ld. Administrator firstly submits that 31 shops had been demolished prior to the last date of hearing. Post the same, the 21 jhuggis in the Mandir premises have been demolished by the DDA. Further, insofar as removal of the shopkeepers along with their articles lying in the sealed shops, it is submitted that a few shopkeepers have voluntarily removed their belongings. However, more shopkeepers are, today onwards, removing their respective goods and belongings from the said shop premises, and are expected to remove all their belongings in the next few days.

7. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel appearing for 65 shopkeepers, submits that the main entry to the Mandir has been locked, due to which the belongings of the shopkeepers cannot be removed at one go. He further submits that more time ought to be given for the shopkeepers to remove their goods. This request is rejected inasmuch as undertakings have already been given by the shopkeepers and they are also being considered for allotment of alternate space on licence basis. Any delay in vacating the existing shops would further delay the cleaning and re-development of the Mandir premises.

8. Accordingly, the ld. Administrator t