Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:04.02.2022
22:23:12
$~18 to 21 & 1(OS) to 8(OS) & 16 (OS) to 19 (OS)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st February, 2022
19
+ FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021,
20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25868/2021, 25869/2021, 25870/2021,
25884/2021, 43946/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022 &
5642/2022
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
versus
KAMLESH SHARMA ..... Respondent
With
+ 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
+ CS (OS) 527/2021 & I.A.s.1717-18/2022
+ CS (OS) 533/2021 & I.A.s.1721-22/2022
+ CS (OS) 538/2021 & I.A.s.1725-26/2022
+ CS (OS) 541/2021 & I.A.s.1723-24/2022
+ CS (OS) 544/2021 & I.A.s.1719-20/2022
+ CS (OS) 547/2021 & I.A.s.1715-16/2022
+ CS (OS) 674/2021
+ CS (OS) 2499/2010
+ CS (OS) 55/2022
+ CS (OS) 56/2022
+ CS (OS) 57/2022
+ CS (OS) 588/2021
Appearances:-
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. (M:9312710547) for Appellant in FAO 36/2021
Mr. K.G. Chhokar, Adv. in CM(M) 323/2021, FAO 36/2021 & 575/2021
Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Advocates for impleaders in FAO 36/2021.
(M:8287908688) [email protected] & [email protected]
Mr. Harvinder Kumar alia Sanjay Bhardwaj in person.
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:04.02.2022
22:23:12
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate. [email protected]
Mr. Yogender Nath Bhardwaj in person.
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9891074686) [email protected]
Mr. Luv Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9990693140)
Mr. Nakul Bhardwaj in person. (M:9971328006)
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj in person. (M:9971576388)
Mr. Yoginder Singh, Advocate. (M:9999735003) for impleader Mr.
Shailender Kumar Gautam.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate. (M:9654665565)
Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal, Mr. Dipanshu Gaba and Mr. Aakarshan
Bhardwaj, Advocates. (M:9212786555) [email protected]
Mr. Anuroop P.S & Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. (M:9582818838)
[email protected]
Mr. Kamal Kant Bhardwaj, Advocate for Thula Bahadur. (M:9999438838)
[email protected]
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Defendant. (M:9350301058)
Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj and Mr. Dinkar Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Mr. D.K. Singhal, Advocate. (M:9811035029)
Ms. Samapika Biswal, Ms. Shambhavi Kala and Mr. Kartikeya Sharma,
Advocates for Ld. Administrator. (M:9818668876)
Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for SDMC & DDA.
(M:9958118327)
Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Standing Counsel for DJB. (M:9811112863)
Mr. Thakur Sumit, Advocate. (M:9968454481) in CS (OS)s 528/2021,
531/2021, 553/2021, 683/2021 & CM (M) 323/2021
Mr. Nitin Jain, Mr. Vishal Chauhan, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Harshil Gupta
& Mr. K.P. Singh, Advs. (M: 9716569056) [email protected]
Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9205103230) [email protected]
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for SDMC. [email protected]
Mr. Deepak Dewan, Advocate. [email protected]
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar,
Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Siddarth Krishna Dwivedi and Ms. Vrinda Singh,
Advocates. (M:9818112250)
Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra & Ms.
Khushboo, Advocates for DUSIB. (M:9810674872)
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate for
applicants in CM No.3455/2022.
Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.10 in item 19.
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:04.02.2022
22:23:12
Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Mr. Nitesh Singla and Ms. Stuti Mishra, Advocates for
Objectors.
Ms. Rakshika Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, Architect.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.
3. In terms of the order dated 21st December 2021, this Court received a detailed report from the Ld. Administrator dated 13th January, 2022 (hereinafter "Report No.2"). The recommendations from the said Report No.2 were recorded in the order dated 14th January, 2022. The various parties before this Court in these matters were permitted to receive copies of the said report and make submissions in respect of those recommendations.
4. Further, this Court has received an additional Report dated 31st January, 2022 (hereinafter "Report No.3") from the ld. Administrator and has reviewed the progress of actions taken pursuant to such recommendations. An overview of the same is as follows. Supply of Water and Laying Down of Sewage Lines
5. Vide order dated 15th November, 2021, this Court had directed the Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter "DJB") to inspect the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir and to take immediate steps for laying down a temporary pipeline for an uninterrupted supply of drinking water as also for supplying running water to the toilet complexes. The DJB was also directed to place on record a status report in respect of the same. Pursuant to the said order, a Report
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 3 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
dated 28th January, 2022 has been filed by Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, ld. Standing Counsel, on behalf of the DJB. The said report has been signed by Mr. Brijnandan Gupta, who is Executive Engineer, (M)51, DJB. As per the said report, the following works have been executed by DJB:
"Pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the following works were executed by Delhi Jal Board.
i. Water line for supplying of water to all 4 Piyaos has been laid and water supply has been started.
ii. The Sewer line has been laid in the Parking area of Kalkaji Mandir Complex and made functional."
6. Report No.3 submitted on behalf of the ld. Administrator has recorded some grievances that were raised, i.e., the sewer lines within the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir, are still choked and there is an overflow of water. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Zonal Engineer, Delhi Jal Board has assured the ld. Administrator that he would look into the matter.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the team from the DJB shall be sent to inspect the premises, and ensure that the choking, leakage and overflow of water, if any, is dealt with and repaired expediently, so that the premises of the Mandir are kept clean. Let a status report be filed by Ms. Bharti on behalf of the DJB by the next date.
Removal of unauthorised construction and encroachments
8. Mr. Nitin Jain, ld. counsel, who appears for 64 shopkeepers submits that all the clients he represents have vacated their respective shops. This position is also confirmed by Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur appearing on behalf of 11 shopkeepers.
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
9. Ms. Samapika Biswal, ld. Counsel, appearing for the ld. Administrator, submits that all the shopkeepers, except Mr. Radhey Shyam who is the shopkeeper of Shop No.1 named 'Kalkamai Ke Prasad Ki Kadami Dukan', have vacated their respective shops and tenements which they were in possession of.
Jhuggi and Jhopri Dwellers
10. Insofar as the Jhuggis are concerned, the ld. Administrator has submitted that 21 Jhuggis were removed on 15th December, 2021 and thereafter on 31st January, 2022, 18 other Jhuggis were removed.
11. The ld. Administrator, in Report No.3, has observed that there are approximately 50-60 Jhuggis that still occupy an area near the Ram Piyao Parking. Insofar as the said Jhuggis are concerned, the DDA, SDMC, and Delhi Police are directed to remove the Jhuggis and ensure that the entire area is cleared.
12. Since the inhabitants of the said Jhuggis have had adequate notice of all the proceedings, which have been going on for the last several months before this Court, it is made clear that if the Jhuggi dwellers fail to vacate the premises, the demolition drive in respect of the 50-60 Jhuggis near the Ram Piyao Parking area shall continue unhindered and conclude, on or before 7th February, 2022. Ms. Pushkarna, ld. counsel, has already assured the Court on behalf of DUSIB that upon request of DDA, adequate shelters shall be made available, if required and alternate space would also be considered, as per its prevalent policy. This aspect has already been dealt with in orders dated 7th December, 2021 and 9th December, 2021.
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
Dharamshalas
13. Insofar as the dharamshalas in the Mandir premises are concerned, there are several occupants in 46 dharamshalas, which have been categorized as under, in Report no.3:
"However, most persons residing in the Dharamshalas have resisted vacation of the same from the Mandir premises. Therefore, the Asst. to the Ld. Administrator conducted an inspection of the Dharamshalas on 04.01.2022 and 05.01.2022 and informed the residents about the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. It was also observed that there are five (5) types of occupation within the Dharamshalas:
(i) Occupied by shopkeepers;
(ii) Occupied by encroachers/trespassers, other than shopkeepers;
(iii) Occupied by Pujaris themselves;
(iv) Occupied by tenants of Pujaris; and
(v) Occupied by sewaks of Pujaris."
14. Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel, appearing for 17 pujaris currently occupying the dharamshalas, submits that his clients and their families have been living in the dharamshalas for several generations. Similarly, Mr. Sanjay Mishra, ld. Counsel, submits that he appears for 5 pujari families who occupy the dharamshalas.
15. Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, ld. Architect, submits that the dharamshalas are in a dilapidated condition and are unsafe for the present occupants.
16. In the opinion of this Court, after perusing the reports initially filed
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
by the Local Commissioner and thereafter by the ld. Administrator, there is no doubt that the dharamshalas are in a dilapidated condition and are plainly unsafe for being occupied. The current situation cannot be permitted to continue as apart from the Pujaris who claim rights, there are several unauthorised occupants and encroachers as well who are living with their families. The dharamshalas also need to be renovated as part of the overall re-development of the Kalkaji Mandir. For this purpose, the present occupants of the dharamshalas including the shopkeepers, encroachers/trespassers other than shopkeepers, the pujaris, the tenants of pujaris, as also the sewaks of pujaris would also have to vacate the said premises.
17. Insofar as all the pujaris and their families occupying the dharamshalas are concerned, they may appear before the ld. Administrator on 7th February, 2022, at 2:00 PM and make their submissions. On the said date, the ld. Administrator may interact with the pujaris and their families, and draw up a list of all eligible pujaris, who could be considered for allotment of quarters in the overall re-development plan. Thereafter, in consultation with the ld. Architect, the ld. Administrator may make recommendations to this Court as to the manner in which the said pujaris and their families ought to be accommodated, if any, in the overall re- development plan.
18. Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel, appearing for some of the baridars, submits that one of the dharamshalas is currently being used for the storage of gangajal and the same must be taken care of during the re-development process.
19. In view of his submission, it is directed that before taking any action
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
towards the demolition of the said dharamshala, the gangajal which is stored in the said dharamshala, shall be moved to a clean and sanitized place, so that the same can be used for the purpose of Puja Sewa. The ld. Administrator shall also take a decision in this regard. Creation of Temporary Shops and Kiosks at the Mandir Premises
20. Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, ld. Architect submits that keeping the overall re-development of Kalkaji Mandir in mind, a plan for the creation of the temporary shops and kiosks is being finalised. He seeks two weeks' time to submit the final proposal for the creation of the temporary shops and kiosks, as also the renovation of the dharamshalas.
21. Accordingly, for this purpose, Mr. Chauhan shall present the finalised re-development plan before this Court on 15th February, 2022 at 2.30 p.m.
22. It is also made clear that while the Jhuggis are being removed on or before 7th February, 2022, the concerned authorities including the DDA, SDMC, and the Delhi Police shall simultaneously also effect the removal and disposal of malba (debris) and commence levelling of the land. The said authorities shall ensure that the land space is freely available for the ld. Architect to conduct a final survey, before presenting the finalised Re- development plan before this Court, on 15th February, 2022. Identification of the Shopkeepers
23. As per Report No. 2 and Report No. 3 of the ld. Administrator, 136 shopkeepers had initially given undertakings to vacate the premises in terms of the previous orders of this Court. However, after examining the said undertakings, the ld. Administrator has drawn up a list of 103 shopkeepers, to whom the shops have to be allotted.
24. Mr. Nitin Jain, ld. Counsel submits that there are 3 or 4 shopkeepers,
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
who have been held to be ineligible for allotment by the ld. Administrator. Mr. Jain is permitted to submit relevant documents in respect of such shopkeepers, so as to enable the ld. Administrator to take a decision, and prepare the final list of shopkeepers eligible for allotment. The ld. Administrator may hold a meeting with the shopkeepers in this regard, on a mutually convenient date and time.
25. The final list of eligible shopkeepers may now be finalized and submitted to this Court by the ld. Administrator, on or before 15th February, 2022.
Tehbazari - Cost of Construction and Monthly Payments
26. The ld. Administrator had made some recommendations as to the tehbazari and the monthly amounts to be paid by the shopkeepers, ranging between 1 and 5 lakhs per month.
27. Mr. Nitin Jain. ld. counsel, has raised objections on behalf of the shopkeepers in this regard. He submits that the income of the shopkeepers from the small shops which are allotted to them is not commensurate with the recommendation made by the Administrator, in any manner. It is also pointed out that the bids of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for a temporary shop at the market-way site, and Rs.5,00,000/- per month for a temporary shop at the Ram Piyao site, as recorded in paragraphs 12 &13 of Report No.2 are on the basis that the Phool Prasad Shops are limited to 10 in number. Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, ld. Counsel who represents 11 shopkeepers has similar objections.
28. From the submissions made today, it appears that different tehbazari amounts may have to be fixed depending upon the categories of shops which are to be allotted. Accordingly, the ld. Administrator shall consider fixing
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
different slabs for the tehbazari for the different categories of shops in the Mandir Premises. The ld. Administrator may make recommendations in respect of the following aspects:
(i) Total number of shops/kiosks to be created;
(ii) Different categories of shops for selling different items and their specific numbers;
(iii) Specific number of shops and kiosks in the different categories;
(iv) Tehbazari to be paid qua each such shop and kiosk based on the category;
(v) Contribution towards cost of construction to be made by such persons; and
(vi) Persons who wish to be allotted the said shops/kiosks and are willing to pay the recommended Tehbazari and contribute to the cost of construction.
29. In this respect, Mr. Nitin Jain, ld. Counsel and Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur shall make submissions before the ld. Administrator on a mutually convenient date and time, on or before 7th February, 2022. Thereafter, the Administrator shall make a recommendation in respect of the costs for construction of the temporary shops as also the tehbazari which is to be charged in respect of the various categories of temporary shops and kiosks which are to be allotted to the shopkeepers. Let a report in respect of the finally recommended tehbazari and monthly amounts which are to be deposited by the shopkeepers, be placed before this Court, on 15th February, 2022, by the ld. Administrator.
30. Additionally, Ms. Smita Maan, ld. Counsel appearing for some baridars, submits that some of the shopkeepers, including Mr. Bhagwandas
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
and Mr. Pyare Lal, used to pay much higher amounts of tehbazari that ran into lakhs of rupees. She submits that the bids which they have submitted before the ld. Administrator are significantly lower than the previous amounts they used to pay. Accordingly, the ld. Administrator would also hear submissions from the baridars in respect of fixing tehbazari amounts.
31. Insofar as the shops, which are currently running in the Mandir premises are concerned, let a report also be placed by the ld. Administrator before this Court as to who are running these shops, what tehbazari amounts are being collected for the said shops, and the manner in which these amounts are being deposited, by 15th February, 2022. Contribution for the Redevelopment of the Mandir from the Baridars
32. The ld. Administrator has recommended that an additional sum of Rs.5 lakhs per month ought to be contributed by the baridars for the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir. For the time being, however, considering the details of various amounts which have been received from the various proceedings in the District Courts and the accounts submitted today, it is directed that the baridars shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per month in the Kalkaji Mandir Fund, subject to further orders of this Court.
33. In so far as other amounts lying deposited before various Courts are concerned, a draft report has been received from the Registry today, tabulating the various amounts, which are lying deposited in the form of FDRs, demand drafts and cheques with the District/Civil Courts. According to the Registry of this Court, the total amounts lying deposited is more than Rs.6 crores, as tabulated till now, apart from those lying deposited in various suits. However, the complete details of the same have not yet been tabulated by the Registry.
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
34. The worthy Registrar General of this Court shall now receive a proper report from the concerned branch. He shall get all the amounts lying deposited in the various proceedings concerning the Kalkaji Mandir before the District Courts transferred into the aforementioned Kalkaji Mandir Fund account.
35. The Court has also noticed that various FDRs, demand drafts and cheques issued in the names of Judicial Officers concerned in the various proceedings, are lying deposited in an uncashed manner. The Registry shall tabulate all of the FDRs, DDs, cheques, and other instruments deposited in various proceedings relating to the Kalkaji Mandir in all suits, appeals, petitions, etc., and submit a report to the worthy Registrar General. The Registrar General shall send the same to the Branch head, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court for necessary encashment of the principal and interest which has accrued thereupon. The said amounts shall be transferred to the account in the name of the "Registrar General, Delhi High Court, A/c Kalkaji Mandir Fund" vide A/c No.15530110155950 IFSC Code UCBA0001553. The concerned banks are directed to cooperate in this regard.
36. The ld. Administrator shall also submit a report setting out the accounts of the expenses incurred with regard to the Kalkaji Mandir, since the date of his appointment. Let the said report be submitted on or before 15th February, 2022.
37. The Registrar General shall also call for the amounts and interest accrued thereupon in the following matters pertaining to the Kalkaji Mandir:
(i) CS (OS) 57/2022 [MISC. SCJ 279/2018] titled Pirthi Nath & Ors. vs. Tula Ram in the Account No. CCD843 PAO VI, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, where pursuant to the orders of the Division
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
Bench of this Court passed in 1972 & 1978, a sum of Rs.10 lacs is stated to be lying deposited in the said account.
(ii) Amounts lying deposited in suits filed before the Original Side of the Delhi High Court.
(iii) In the proceedings pending in CS SCJ 96542/16 pending before the Court of Ms. Sonam Singh, CJ-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, where 11 FDRs to the tune of Rs.1,08,96,045/-.
38. In all these matters, let the said amounts be consolidated along with any interest which has accrued thereon, and be transferred to the Kalkaji Mandir Fund.
39. Any FDRs lying in the sealed cover shall be removed for the purpose of encashing the amounts in the presence of the Deputy Registrar of this Court. Thereafter, the amounts encashed shall be deposited in the Kalkaji Mandir Fund.
CS(OS) 674/2021
40. The present suit for recovery of mesne profits/damages has been filed against Sh. Rajinder Aggarwal/Defendant who was occupying shop no. A-1, Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi.
41. He is an illegal occupant in the said premises.
42. In terms of the previous orders passed by this Court dated 27th September, 2021, 15th November, 2021 and 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021, and 21st December, 2021, all shopkeepers were directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of their shops within the premises of Kalkaji Mandir.
43. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is no longer in occupation of the shop concerned. This is also confirmed by the ld. counsel
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
for the ld. Administrator.
44. Accordingly, the said Defendant shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, as donation to the Mandir, on account of occupying the said premises for so many years without paying any tehbazari or rent. The said amount shall be deposited by the Defendant within four weeks, to the Kalkaji Mandir Fund.
45. It is made clear that only after the said amount is deposited shall the Defendant - if he wishes to be considered for allotment of a new shop - be considered for allotment.
46. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of in these terms. CS (OS) 588/2021
47. In this matter, Mr. Kamal Mehta, ld. Counsel submits that an application bearing no. Misc SCJ No.27/2021 titled Radhey Shyam v. Saliq Ram, has been moved by Sh. Durga Prasad for withdrawal of amounts lying deposited in the A/c No. 33714286687 in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch. The said amount is stated to be Rs.1,63,11,465/-. As per Mr. Mehta, the amount to be disbursed to the applicants pursuant to proceedings between the parties that were disposed of in terms of a compromise decree vide order dated 22nd October, 2001.
48. Let the said amount be transferred by the concerned bank, within two weeks, to the Kalkaji Mandir Fund. Upon the said amount being received, the application filed by Sh. Durga Prasad shall be considered by this Court.
49. List on 15th February, 2022.
CS (OS) 2499/2010
50. This suit was filed by Sh. Mahender Bhardwaj, a Pujari, against the Defendant seeking possession, permanent injunction, damages and mesne profits, with regard to A-20-Salagram Kasth Dharamshala, located in the
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
premises of Kalkaji Mandir. The case in the suit was that the Defendant was running a shop and was using the Dharamshala without authorization.
51. Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. counsel, submits that this is a suit filed against the unauthorized occupants of the Dharamshala.
52. Mr. Tripathi, ld. counsel appearing for the Defendant would like to seek instructions in this matter. He further submits that his client is not currently available to give an undertaking with regard to his occupation of the said Dharamshala.
53. Accordingly, the Defendant, shall give instructions to Mr. Tripathi and make a statement with respect to this issue, on the next date of hearing.
54. List this matter on 4th February, 2022.
55. Insofar as other occupants of the Dharamshala are concerned, in CS (OS) 523/2021, CS (OS)s 529/2021, 530/2021 & 534/2021, CS(OS) 548/2021, CS(OS) 551/2021, CS (OS) 555/2019, this Court vide previous order dated 9th December, 2021 had directed the Defendants to deposit certain sums as donations to the Mandir, and the said sum was to be determined by the ld. Administrator after verifying their capacity. In this regard, the ld. Administrator has recommended a deposit of Rs.2 lacs each by the Defendants.
56. Therefore, in respect of these occupants, identified as below in Report No.3:
(a) Mr. Pyare Lal (CS(OS) 548/2021);
(b) Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma (CS(OS) 551/2021);
(c) Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Mr. Gyan Singh Sharma (CS (OS) 555/2019);
(d) Ms. Suman Shahi (CS (OS)s 529/2021, 530/2021 &
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 15 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
534/2021);
(e) Ms. Saraswati, Mr. Sanjay Baral and Mr. Ajay Baral (CS (OS) 523/2021);
Each of the above listed parties from (a) to (e) shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as donation to the Kalkaji Mandir as recommended by the ld. Administrator, within four weeks, to the Kalkaji Mandir Fund. FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25868/2021, 25869/2021, 25870/2021, 25884/2021, 43946/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022 & 5642/2022
57. Vide order dated 14th January, 2022, this Court had issued notice to one Sh. Radhey Shyam, who is the shopkeeper of Shop No.1 named 'Kalkamai Ke Prasad Ki Kadami Dukan'. As per the ld. Administrator's report, Mr. Radhey Shyam had refused to vacate the said shop in order to enable the redevelopment of the Mandir premises. It was his case before the Administrator that there are various orders which have been passed in his favour, and thus he is entitled to occupy the premises.
58. Today, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, ld. Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, ld. Counsel, appears on behalf of Mr. Radhe Shyam.
59. Reliance is placed by Mr. Kirpal on the order of the Supreme Court dated 3rd October, 2018 in SLP No.36887/2016 titled Shri Pearey Lal v. Shri Jia Pujari, where the Supreme Court has directed as under:
"Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed holding that the appellant(s) is a licensee, decree of injunction is passed in favour of the appellant to the extent that the appellant shall not be dispossessed without the process of law meaning thereby the respondent(s) shall be permitted to recourse of legal proceedings in this behalf. We
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 16 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
may record that as and when such a suit is filed the same shall be adjudicated on its own merits. No order as to costs."
60. A perusal of the above order would show that the status of Mr. Radhe Shyam is one of a licensee, who can be dispossessed in accordance with law. Notably, the suit in which this order has been passed, was filed in a representative capacity and at best would be a representation on behalf of the deity in the Kalkaji Mandir. Therefore, the status of Mr. Radhey Shyam is, at best, one of a licensee.
61. It is a matter of record that currently, an Administrator has been appointed for the overall administration, redevelopment and management of the Kalkaji Mandir. As is clear from the ld. Administrator's report, the Administrator has already issued three communications to Mr. Radhe Shyam to vacate the premises. However, Mr. Radhey Shyam has refused to do so.
62. Considering that the Administrator is now looking after the overall administration of the Kalkaji Mandir and its redevelopment, Mr. Radhey Shyam shall make his submissions before the ld. Administrator and the Administrator shall make his recommendation to this Court accordingly.
63. In the meantime, Mr. Radhey Shyam shall file a complete account of all the amounts which have been deposited by him before the Trial Court and the photographs of the premises concerned, within two weeks.
64. List on 15th February, 2022.
65. Mr. Udit, ld. Counsel, also submits that he has filed a fresh application in respect of rights over the upcoming Bari commencing on 12th February, 2022. Ld. Counsel to bring the said application on record and get
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 17 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:04.02.2022 22:23:12
it listed before the Court, upon which, the same shall be considered by the Court.
66. It is made clear that all amounts being transferred to the account newly opened by the worthy Registrar General of this Court toward re- development of Kalkaji Mandir, shall be retained in an interest bearing account.
67. List on 15th February 2022.
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, CS (OS) 527/2021 & I.A.s.1717-18/2022, CS (OS) 533/2021 & I.A.s.1721-22/2022, CS (OS) 538/2021 & I.A.s.1725-26/2022, CS (OS) 541/2021 & I.A.s.1723-24/2022, CS (OS) 544/2021 & I.A.s.1719-20/2022, CS (OS) 547/2021 & I.A.s.1715-16/2022, CS (OS) 55/2022, CS (OS) 56/2022, CS (OS) 57/2022
68. List on 15th February 2022.
69. Ms. Samapika Biswal, ld. Counsel, appearing for the ld. Administrator, to file Report No.3 of the ld. Administrator before the Court and bring the same on record, within a week. The Registry is permitted to issue copy of Report No.3 to all parties upon request.
70. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 01, 2022/mw/dk/Rahul/ad/ms
(corrected & released on 4th February, 2022)
FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 18 of 18
