Court ensures participatory redevelopment process for community stakeholders while directing eviction of unauthorized occupants and considering rehabilitation under public housing schemes.

Headnote:(A) Court monitoring order - The role of the Ld. Administrator is strengthened through the appointment of legal counsel as assistants to aid in the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir, ensuring participation from pujaris and baridaars in the process. The court emphasized the importance of considering the needs and suggestions of the concerned parties and maintaining transparency in the redevelopment efforts. (Paras 4, 8, 9)

(B) Eviction proceedings - Directions were issued for the final vacation of the dharamshalas by the occupants, emphasizing that unauthorized occupants do not have court protection. (Paras 21)

(C) Rehabilitation issues - A proposal was made regarding the availability of housing under the JNNURM scheme for urban poor occupants, balancing public interest with the need for redevelopment. (Paras 19, 22)

(D) Meeting directions - Regular interactions between the Administrator and stakeholders were mandated to facilitate the redevelopment process. (Paras 9, 10) (E) Allotment of temporary shops - The court directed the Administrator to ensure the fair allotment of shops to eligible applicants, maintaining a fair bidding process. (Paras 11, 15)

Table of Content
1. appointment of assistant to administrator (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. support for redevelopment of kalkaji mandir (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
3. report on temporary shops (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. payment for flats and rehabilitation of jhuggi dwellers (Para 14 , 19 , 20)
5. eviction of unauthorized occupants (Para 21 , 22)
6. hearing and undertakings in civil suit (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
7. listing of matters for future hearing (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

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 27th September, 2021, Ms. Manmeet Arora was appointed as Assistant to the ld. Administrator. The relevant paragraph of the said order is set out below:

"107. The ld. Administrator shall be assisted by Ms. Manmeet Arora, who has been appointed as the Local Commissioner by this Court in these cases, from time to time, and has submitted various reports on the condition of the Kalkaji Mandir. The ld. Administrator may appoint a Secretary-cum Treasurer to assist him in carrying out his mandate and day-to-day functioning."

4. The said ld. Counsel who had been appointed as the Assistant to the ld. Administrator, has since been elevated as a Judge of this Court. Accordingly, Ms. Samapika Biswal, ld. Counsel who has been working with the erstwhile counsel, Ms. Arora, and who has also been assisting the ld. Administrator on a continuous basis and appearing before the Court on behalf of the ld. Administrator, is appointed as the Assistant to the ld. Administrator. Considering the standing of Ms. Biswal, ld. Counsel, her payment is fixed at Rs.75,000/- per month, instead of Rs.1,50,000/- per month which was earlier fixed, payable in the same manner as that of the erstwhile Assistant mutatis mutandis.

5. At the outset, it is noted that as recorded in the previous order dated 13th May, 2022, ld. Counsels appearing for the pujaris who were the petitioners before the Supreme Court in SLP No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. and the Division Bench in LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, and of various baridaars and pujaris had clearly and unequivocally submitted that they support the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir fully. However, they ought to be allowed to participate in the redevelopment process and give their suggestions and recommendations to the ld. Administrator and the Architect. The Court had accordingly directed them to give their suggestions and the said process is already underway before the ld. Administrator. The relevant extract of the said order dated 13th May, 2022, reads as under:

"8. Going forward, the submission of Mr. Vikas Singh, Id. Senior Counsel and Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, Id. Counsel, appearing for the pujaris who were the petitioners before the Supreme Court in SLP No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. and the Division Bench in LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, and of various baaridars and pujaris is that they support the redevelopment of Kalkaji Mandir fully, however, in the redevelopment process, the baaridars and the pujaris ought to be allowed to participate and give their suggestions and recommendations to the Id. Administrator and the Architect. Their submission is that the role of the Pujaris and the Dharamshala occupants ought to be acknowledged and some part of the redevelopment ought to account for their interests as well.

9. In view of the submissions made by the Dharamshala occupants and the pujaris today, they are permitted to appear before the ld. Administrator at a suitable time and date fixed by the ld. Administrator in order to enable them to give their suggestions/recommendations/proposals to the Id. Administrator in respect of the redevelopment. During this meeting, it i