Court upheld the necessity of lawful eviction of unauthorized occupants to ensure redevelopment while facilitating temporary arrangements for vendors during religious events.

Headnote:(A) Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir - Court had previously ordered eviction and temporary arrangements for vendors during Navratra. Issues included ownership rights and necessity of redevelopment, which were undisputed. (Paras 3, 4, 11)

(B) Eviction Procedure - Court clarified arrangements for eviction of unauthorized occupants, ensuring police assistance during the process, and directed cooperation among civic agencies for redevelopment. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

(C) Temporary Vendor Arrangements - Court sanctioned the establishment of temporary kiosks and tables for vendors during a religious festival, emphasizing the need for a dignified environment for devotees while accommodating vendor interests. (Paras 12, 15, 18)

Table of Content
1. court proceedings initiated via hybrid mode. (Para 1 , 2)
2. specific court orders regarding unauthorized occupancy. (Para 3 , 4)
3. consideration of representations from occupants. (Para 5)
4. administrator to report findings on representations. (Para 6)
5. eviction of unauthorized occupants orderly conducted. (Para 7)
6. status on demolition and evacuation activities. (Para 8 , 9)
7. pending considerations for remaining dharamshalas. (Para 10)
8. liberty for applicants post-administrator hearings. (Para 11)
9. temporary arrangements for navratri set-ups discussed. (Para 12 , 13)
10. provision for temporary table spaces explained. (Para 14 , 15)
11. details on shopkeeper participation and fees outlined. (Para 16)
12. concerns over foot traffic addressed. (Para 17)
13. table space allocation confirmed for upcoming navratras. (Para 18 , 19)
14. progress on shop constructions noted. (Para 20 , 21)
15. larger shop constructions permitted. (Para 22 , 23)
16. administrative cooperation for shop setup emphasized. (Para 24 , 25)
17. conditions for specific shop allotment discussed. (Para 26 , 27)
18. monitoring of past financial activities mandated. (Para 28 , 29)
19. inquiry into vendors outside premises requested. (Para 30)
20. next hearing date established. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--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.

3. Vide previous order dated 22nd March, 2022, eviction of unauthorized occupants of jhuggis and occupants of dharamshalas was directed, and directions were also issued for allocation of temporary tables for shops to be set up during the Navratra period. Pursuant to the said order, this Court has been informed that an SLP being SLP No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. was preferred by some occupants of dharamshalas challenging the order dated 27th September, 2021, and subsequent orders passed in the present appeal. In the said SLP, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25th March, 2022, has directed as under:

"1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.

2. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

3. We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the Administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance.

4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

4. Ms. Biswal, ld. Counsel appearing for the ld. Administrator, also submits that three LPAs being LPA No.170/2022 titled Sohan Lal Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, LPA No.171/2022 titled Rahul Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., and LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj have been filed by the occupants of the dharamshalas, against various orders of this Court, being orders dated 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021, 21st December, 2021, 14th January, 2022, 1st February, 2022, 15th February, 2022 and 2nd March, 2022, 15th March, 2022 and 22nd March, 2022. Out of these three LPAs, ld. Counsel submits that the order dated 29th March, 2022 has been passed in LPA No.172/2022. The said order reads as under:

"3. The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the orders dated 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021, 21st December, 2021, 14th January, 2022, 1st February, 2022, 15th February, 2022 and 2nd March, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO 36/2021, CM(M) 323/2021, CM (M) 575/2021 and CONT.CAS (C) 614/2021.

4. When this appeal came up before this Court notice was issued in the appeal to the respondents as also to the SDMC, Delhi Jal Board, DDA, Govt. of NCT of Delh