The court ruled on the necessity of redevelopment of temple premises while ensuring the rights of pujaris and addressing grievances of unauthorized occupants.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Eviction proceedings - Unauthorized occupants of Dharamshalas at Kalkaji Mandir directed to vacate the premises - Supreme Court intervened to allow pujaris to remain until their grievances are addressed, despite ongoing redevelopment - Administrators tasked with securing possession and managing belongings. (Paras 3-6, 10)

(B) Redevelopment plan for Kalkaji Mandir - Emphasized as paramount importance - Previous court orders reiterated to support redevelopment while addressing the concerns of existing occupants - Directions given for demarcation and consideration of grievances. (Paras 27-28)

(C) Financial matters related to reconstruction - Approval for construction of temporary shops, funding allocation discussed to ensure redevelopment progresses as planned. (Paras 14-17)

Facts of the case:
Dispute pertains to the eviction of unauthorized occupants from Kalkaji Mandir premises, primarily focusing on pujaris and Dharamshala occupants, with Supreme Court involved to secure rights amid redevelopment plans.

Findings of Court:
High Court emphasized the need to continue with redevelopment while allowing legitimate claims of pujaris; existing unauthorized occupants must vacate within stipulated timelines.

Issues: The legality of eviction orders against unauthorized occupants; the balance between redevelopment and the rights of pujaris and occupants.

Ratio Decidendi: Court reaffirms the right to redevelopment while acknowledging the welfare of pujaris, stating, 'maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner... must be of paramount importance.'

Result: Directions for eviction upheld; redevelopment efforts to proceed with adherence to legal rights of affected parties.

Table of Content
1. court's authority and ongoing matter context. (Para 2 , 3)
2. supreme court proceedings relevant to dharamshala occupants. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. eviction directions for illegal occupants. (Para 7 , 9)
4. administrator's role in securing possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 18)
5. construction and funding of temporary shops. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. demarcation responsibilities. (Para 19 , 20)
7. thebazari arrangements for temporary selling spaces. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. tds issues and administrative responsibilities. (Para 24 , 25)
9. future considerations and scheduling. (Para 26 , 34)
10. redevelopment plan considerations and submissions. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

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.

Unauthorized Occupants of Jhuggis and Dharamshalas

3. Vide order dated 1st June, 2022, after hearing the ld. Counsels for the pujaris and dharamshala occupants, this Court had directed the dharamshala occupants and all the pujaris who are occupying the dharamshalas to vacate the Kalkaji Mandir premises, on or before 6th June, 2022, failing which, the SHO, P.S. Kalkaji was directed to take steps, in consultation with the ld. Administrator, to evict the said pujaris and the dharamshala occupants.

4. Some of the dharamshala occupants have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the orders dated 20th May, 2022 and 1st June, 2022 passed by this Court, vide two separate petitions:

a) SLP (C) Nos.010688-010689/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. It is submitted by ld. Counsels for the parties, as also, by the ld. Counsel for the ld. Administrator that the 17 Petitioners in these SLPs are pujaris who conduct puja sewa at the Kalkaji Mandir. In this SLP the following order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 13th June, 2022:

"Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is allowed.

Applications seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned orders as also for seeking exemption from filing the official translation of the Annexure are allowed.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

In the meanwhile, there shall be no impediment for carrying out the re-development as directed by High Court of Delhi through the orders impugned herein but such re-development shall be without dispossessing the petitioners from the premises wherein they are stated to be residing at present.

Tag this Special Leave Petitions along with Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 32452-32453 of 2013."

b) SLP (C) 011140-011141/2022 titled Ram Swarth Singh & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., was filed by the occupants of the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala. In the said SLP, the following order dated on 27th June, 2022 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

We however, grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances including allotment of alternative spaces for rehabilitation.

We have no reason to doubt that the Administrator shall examine such claims in accordance with law and policy.

If the petitioners file an undertaking before the Administrator to hand-over peaceful vacant possession, they shall be permitted to retain possession for a period of two weeks.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. A perusal of the above order dated 13th June, 2022 shows that, in respect of the 17 Petitioners claiming to be the pujaris who are in occupation of the dharamshalas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the said Petiti