Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. vs Kamlesh Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2162 Del

                                                       Signature Not Verified
                                                       Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                       Signing Date:18.07.2022
                                                       21:24:45



$~2(SB), 3(SB), 4(SB), 5(SB), & 7 to 9 & 12 to 26 & 31
                                         Date of Decision: 15th July, 2022
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    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, 43944-46/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022,
     5641/2022, 5642/2022, 5803/2022, 5865/2022, 7745/2022,
     13472/2022, 16153/2022, 17039/2022, 18207/2022, 18247/2022,
     18248/2022, 21768/2022, 21801/2022, 21802/2022, 21803/2022,
     22125/2022, 23093/2022, 29624/2022
     NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS.                                ..... Appellants
                        versus
     KAMLESH SHARMA                                      ..... Respondent
                        With
+    CM (M) 323/2021 & CM APPL. 14178/2021, 20945/2021,
     20949/2021, 40269/2021
+    CM (M) 575/2021 & CM APPL. 29013-14/2021, 43796-97/2021,
     19915/2022
+    CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021
+    CS (OS) 55/2022
+    CS (OS) 56/2022
+    CS (OS) 57/2022
+    CS (OS) 511/2021
+    CS (OS) 526/2021 & I.A. 7511/2022
+    CS (OS) 527/2021 & I.As.1717-18/2022
+    CS (OS) 533/2021 & I.As.1721-22/2022
+    CS (OS) 535/2021 & I.A. 7552/2022
+    CS (OS) 538/2021 & I.As.1725-26/2022
+    CS (OS) 539/2021 & I.As. 9063/2022, 9064/2022
+    CS (OS) 540/2021 & I.A. 7940/2022
+    CS (OS) 541/2021 & I.As.1723-24/2022
+    CS (OS) 542/2021 & I.As. 9031/2022, 9032/2022
+    CS (OS) 544/2021 & I.As.1719-20/2022
+    CS (OS) 545/2021
+    CS (OS) 547/2021 & I.As.1715-16/2022
+    CS (OS) 554/2021 & I.As. 9061/2022, 9062/2022
+    CS (OS) 579/2021 & I.As. 9981/2022,
+    CS (OS) 2499/2010


FAO 36/2021 & connected matters                                         Page 1 of 16
                                                          Signature Not Verified
                                                         Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                         Signing Date:18.07.2022
                                                         21:24:45



Appearances:-
Ms. Simran Gill & Mr. Ankur Prakash, Advocates.
Mr. Mohit Auluck, Advocate for Mr. Vinay Bhardwaj (M-9999903936)
Ms. Sonia Singhani, Advocate for DDA (M-9810172501)
Mr. Mukul Kumar, Advocate (M-9891766002).
Mr. Satyam Thareja & Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates (M-8826331177)
Mr. Rohit K. Naagpal and Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates in FAO 36/2021.
(M:9873730191)
Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate (M-9205103230)
Mr. Atul Jain and Mr. Anshul Srivastava, Advocates. (M:8800921768)
Mr. R. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Appellant in FAO 36/2021.
(M:9312710547)
Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. (M:9871588350)
Mr. K.P. Singh, Mr. Abdul Qadir, Ms. Ritika Singh and Mohd. Ashraf,
Advocates. (M:9990660275)
Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9999764979)
Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate.
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9891074686)
Mr. Luv Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9990693140)
Mr. Harkirat Singh and Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advocates. (M:9818668876)
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Vipul Gaur. (M:9350271061)
Mr.    Sarvesh     Bhardwaj,    Advocate    for     Plaintiffs/LRs/Defendants
(M:9350301058).
Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate. (M:9810135577)
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajmangal Kumar,
Advocate for Applicants in CM Nos.18207/2022 & 17247/2022.
(M:9871211544)
Mr. Arun Birbal, Ms. Sonia Swgharia, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for DDA.
(M:9958118327)
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Standing Counsel for SDMC. (M:9891488088)
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, with Mr. Dewang Singh Chauhan, Advocates.
(M:866910977)
Mr. Nitin Jain, Mr. Vishal Chauhan, Ms. Komal Jain, Mr. Rishabh Singhal and
Ms. Kavita Singh, Advocates for Shopkeepers. (M:9716569056)
Mr. Prabhas Chandra, Advocate for D-2. (M:9871254033)
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate with Mr. K. Mahesh, CEO, DUSIB with Mr.
A.K. Shrivastav, Law Officer (DUSIB) (M-9810473166).
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate. (M:9999438838)
Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Standing Counsel, DJB
Mr. Jameel Ahemad, & Ms. Kunti Mathur, Advocates. (M:9810961212)


FAO 36/2021 & connected matters                                           Page 2 of 16
                                                           Signature Not Verified
                                                          Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                          Signing Date:18.07.2022
                                                          21:24:45


Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, Architect.
Inspector Balbir Singh, SHO/Kalkaji and SI Prakash PS Kalkaji in person.
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, SC BSES-RPL with Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates.
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9971576388)
Mr. Lhingeihat Chongloi & Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Advocates.
(M:8376813699)
Mr. Satyam Thareja, Mr. Puneet Singh Kundu with Mr. Khem Chand,
Advocates. (M:9711097019)

       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. 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.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

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

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

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 Petitioners would not be dispossessed. However, it was clarified that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir, as directed by this Court, would continue.

6. Insofar as the other occupants of the dharamshalas are concerned who are illegal occupants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 27th June, 2022, merely gave such Petitioners leave to approach the ld. Administrator with their grievances, including seeking allotment of alternative space for rehabilitation. Subject to filing of an undertaking, the Petitioners were permitted to retain possession for a period of two weeks. The ld. Administrator has filed his Report No.7 in terms of order dated 1st June, 2022 (hereinafter "Report No.7"). As per the said Report No.7, the dharamshala occupants whose SLP was dismissed on 27th June, 2022 had

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

informed the ld. Administrator that they have filed a review petition against the dismissal. Ld. Administrator has also informed the Court that the undertakings in terms of the order dated 27th June, 2022 are not proper. Further, the said dharamshala occupants have vacated the dharamshalas, however, their belongings are still lying therein.

7. Thus, insofar as the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala, which was the subject matter of the order dated 27th June, 2022 is concerned, none of the occupants are entitled to continue being in possession of the Mandir premises or leave their belongings lying in the Mandir premises. Accordingly, the occupants of the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala shall remove their belongings from the Mandir premises by 19th July, 2022, failing which, the ld. Administrator shall take appropriate steps, with the cooperation of the authorities, including the SDMC and the Delhi Police, for removing their belongings from the said dharamshala.

8. Today, Mr. Lokesh Bharadwaj, ld. Counsel has submitted that 16 pujaris who are in occupation of some of the Dharamshalas have also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have filed SLP (Civil) Dairy No.19130/2022 titled Atul Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. He submits that the said SLP is likely to be listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court next week.

9. Thus, insofar as the pujaris are concerned, they shall abide by the orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the respective SLPs which are pending/stated to have been filed. The list of 33 Petitioners whose petitions are pending or is stated to have been filed are as under:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

SLP (C) Nos.010688-010689/2022 - Covered by order dated 13th June 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court S. No. Names of Pujaris Name of Dharamshala

1. Nathi Ram Bhardwaj Mehtab Dharamshala

2. Brij Bhushan Bhardwaj Mehtab Dharamshala

3. Brij Mohan Bhardwaj Mehtab Dharamshala

4. Rakesh Bhardwaj Gulab Dharamshala

5. Pawan Bhardwaj Gulab Dharamshala

6. Arun Bhardwaj Gulab Dharamshala

7. Rajbati Revti Kunj

8. Dheeraj Revti Kunj

9. Dinesh Pandey Pandey Dharamshala

10. Haridutt Bhardwaj Ramdutt Dharamshala

11. Krishandutt Bhardwaj Ramdutt Dharamshala

12. Kapil Bharadwaj Jay Prakash Dharamshala

13. Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj Ram Kishore Dharamshala

14. Dinesh Kumar Bharadwaj S-3, Dharamshala

15. Yoginder Bharadwaj Bhagwati Dharamshala

16. Vinod Kumar Pappu Dharamshala

17. Vimlesh Bharadwaj Lakhpat Dharamshala

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

SLP (Civil) Dairy No.19130/2022 - Filed but not yet listed S. No. Name of Petitioner Name of Dharamshala

1. Atul Bhardwaj Sukhli Dharamshala

2. Tilak Bhardwaj Shyam Dharamshala

3. Sohan Lal Bhardwaj Kali Ram Bhawan

4. Vinayak Bhardwaj Vinayak Dharamshala

5. Mukesh Bhardwaj Hanuman Wali Dharamshala

6. Dinkar Sharma Hanuman Wali Dharamshala

7. Pradeep Kumar Hanuman Wali Dharamshala

8. Meenakshi Sharma Hanuman Wali Dharamshala

9. Vikas Gaur Pandit Naanu Ram Dharamshala

10. Praveen Bhardwaj Kirpa Ram Dharamshala

11. Laxmi Dutt Pandey Ram Chander Dharamshala

12. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj Dharamshala No.41, Jai Mata Dham

13. Om Prakash Bhardwaj Pt. Om Prakash Dharamshala

14. Mahesh Bhardwaj Kishan Chand Dharamshala

15. Narender Sharma Pandit Ramasre Dharamshala

16. Lalit Bhardwaj Sheerowali Dharamshala

10. Insofar as any other occupants of the Dharamshalas are concerned, the ld. Administrator along with the Delhi Police and the SDMC shall take steps to evict all these dharamshala occupants and secure vacant and peaceful possession of the dharamshalas. The Delhi Police shall also provide adequate manpower to secure the vacant possession of the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

dharamshalas which are under the illegal occupation of any persons.

11. Ld. Administrator has also informed the Court that there are some dharamshalas which are locked, but empty. Accordingly, directions are issued for breaking open of the locks of any dharamshalas with effect from 20th July, 2022.

12. Insofar as the Ramswaroop Dharamshala where Gangajal is stated to be stored is concerned, this Court had issued the following directions, vide order dated 1st February, 2022:

"18. Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Id. 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 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."

13. It is made clear that insofar as Ramswaroop Dharamshala is concerned, the vacant possession of this Dharamshala shall also be secured by the ld. Administrator after implementing the directions given above, in respect of moving the Gangajal to a clean and sanitized place for use in the conduct of puja sewa. Various counsels have also submitted that the said Dharamshala is in a dilapidated condition. Accordingly, no protection is being given to the occupants of this Dharamshala under the pretext of taking care of the Gangajal.

14. If there are any other jhuggi dwellers or unauthorized occupants,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

within the periphery of the Mandir premises, the eviction of the said persons shall be carried out, without any further orders of the Court. Let a status report in this regard be filed by the Delhi Police by the next date of hearing. Allotment of temporary shops

15. Insofar as the temporary shops are concerned, out of the total 122 shops, Mr. Chauhan, the Architect has informed the Court that the structure of 68 shops is ready and only electrification is to be done now. He further submits that the deadline fixed by this Court for completion of construction of temporary shops is 31st July, 2022 and he expects all the shops will be erected by the deadline. A further sum of Rs.25 lakhs is sought by the Architect, for the purpose of such construction. The total budget, which was already presented to the Court for the construction of shops, boundary wall and toilets was, approximately, as under:

       (i)     Rs. 85.5 lakhs + GST for Shops
       (ii)    Rs.19.5 lakhs + GST for boundary walls
       (iii)   Rs.17 lakhs + GST for toilets

16. This Court has already approved a sum of Rs.75 lakhs for the said purpose. A further sum of Rs.25 lakhs is now approved for the same. The payment shall be released from the "Registrar General, Delhi High Court, A/c Kalkaji Mandir Fund" vide A/c No.15530110155950 IFSC Code UCBA0001553J (hereinafter "Kalkaji Mandir Fund") to the 'Administrator of Shri Kalkaji Mandir Appointed by Court' in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch vide A/c No. 15530210003589 IFSC Code UCBA0001553 (hereinafter "Administrator's UCO Bank Account").

17. Insofar as electrification of these temporary shops is concerned, vide previous order dated 1st June, 2022, this Court had noted that BSES was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

supplying electricity for the temporary shops. In view of the concern raised by BSES as to previous outstanding dues for the Kalkaji Mandir premises, this Court had directed BSES to place an affidavit on record setting out such dues, as also, meeting with the ld. Administrator to shut down any unused meters in the premises. Pursuant to the same, Mr. Fernandes, ld. Counsel for the BSES, appears today and submits that the temporary electricity connection has already been given and the officers of BSES shall cooperate with the ld. Administrator for electrification of the temporary shops as and when they are ready. He further submits that the dues of BSES are more than Rs.90 lakhs and an affidavit in this regard has been placed on record. Insofar as the payment of past dues is concerned, the said matter shall be considered at a later stage upon the redevelopment plan being approved.

18. Insofar as the allotment of shops is concerned, since the shops are still getting ready, orders in this regard are deferred. Demarcation of the Kalkaji Mandir Premises

19. The ld. Administrator has reported that further khasra numbers ought to be demarcated as there is a lack of clarity as to which khasra number falls where. The said khasra numbers mentioned by the ld. Administrator in Report No.7 are as under:

"30. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the office of SDM to accordingly carry out the demarcation of the Kalkaji Mandir premises, including all the Khasras Nos. 626, 627, 623/2, 629/2, 630/2, 633/2/2, 701, 1201/627/2/2 and 1203/627/2/2, as represented to be part of the Mandir by the pujaris, in an expeditious manner."

20. In light of this position, the SDM, Kalkaji, is directed to carry out the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

demarcation of the entirety of the Kalkaji Mandir premises as also the above Khasra Nos., within a period of two weeks i.e., by 31st July, 2022. The Tehsildar/SDM, Kalkaji shall place a report in this regard before this Court on the next date of hearing. The SDM shall also give notice to the DDA and the concerned officials of DDA shall be present for the purpose of demarcation.

Tehbazari to be paid by Small Shopkeepers

21. Insofar as the payment of tehbazari by small shopkeepers is concerned i.e., for sale of dry coconuts, lemons, diyas and jaiphal, supari and pan patta, the ld. Administrator has suggested a tehbazari of Rs.50,000/- per month.

22. Let the baridaars give their views to the ld. Administrator on this amount, and on the next date of hearing, submissions may be made in this regard. Two representatives of shopkeepers are also permitted to attend the said meeting and give their views to the ld. Administrator. Location of Temporary Table Spaces

23. Insofar as temporary table spaces for the purpose of daily puja samigri etc. is concerned, the persons concerned are permitted to approach the ld. Administrator when the next meeting with the baridaars is called by the ld. Administrator. The ld. Administrator shall then consider these submissions on the location and viability of temporary table spaces. TDS Deductions

24. There are also some issues relating to TDS deductions from the ld. Administrator's bank accounts which are maintained for receipt of amounts concerning the Kalkaji Mandir and the TDS deductions from various amounts and FDRs, which have been transferred from suits pending before

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

other courts to the Kalkaji Mandir Fund.

25. Let Mr. Zoheb Husain, ld. Standing Counsel, be informed by the Registry, to look into the matter and make his submissions on the next date of hearing.

26. List on 4th August, 2022 at 2:30 pm. Redevelopment Plan of the Kalkaji Mandir premises

27. This Court notes that insofar as the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is concerned, various orders were passed by this Court directing steps to be taken towards redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir. Some of the orders were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One appeal was also heard by the ld. Division Bench of this Court. A perusal of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the ld. Division Bench, shows that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is of paramount importance and is to continue. In fact, vide order dated 25th March, 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"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 take place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and it surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance."

28. The spirit of the above order is also reiterated, vide order dated 13th June, 2022, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.010688- 010689/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"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."

29. In LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, the Division Bench has also affirmed this position. The operative portion of the said order dated 29th March, 2022 reads as under:

"11. In view of the fact that two important facts are undisputed in this appeal, firstly, ownership rights in the property and secondly, that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is essential which is not disputed by any of the parties, it would be appropriate to give fair chance to the appellant/ applicant to appear before the learned Administrator to raise his concern. The learned Administrator is thus requested to give personal hearing to the applicant on 31st March, 2022, when the appellant/ applicant will be at liberty to give written representation along with necessary documents, if so desires. The learned Administrator on hearing the appellant/ applicant will submit a report to the learned Single Judge so that suitable directions if necessary are issued by the learned Single Judge."

30. Pursuant to all the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court concerning the Kalkaji Mandir premises, a significant part of the land stood vacated by the shopkeepers, jhuggi dwellers, occupants of Dharamshalas, etc. This Court has also directed erection of the boundary wall, levelling of the land and other steps towards commencement of the redevelopment. The work of erecting boundary wall etc., is stated to have

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

been commenced as per the Architect. The Architect had put up certain plans for redevelopment but the baridaars and others had expressed that they would also like to give inputs. Accordingly, they were to hold a meeting with the ld. Administrator and submit their proposals, as per order dated 20th May, 2022. By Report No.7, the Court has been informed that a meeting was held between the baridaars and the ld. Administrator on 4th June, 2022. The ld. Administrator states that suggestions have been received from various baridaars and pujaris in respect of the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir during the said meeting. The minutes of the said meeting and the various inputs given by the baridaars and pujaris have been attached with Report No.7.

31. Ld. Administrator has further informed the Court that all the inputs received from the baridaars and pujaris have been handed over to Mr. Chauhan, the Architect.

32. The Architect, Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, who has joined the proceedings virtually today, submits that he would require two weeks' time to present the comprehensive redevelopment plan before this Court. Accordingly, the Architect shall now consider the entire redevelopment plan, keeping in mind the suggestions given by all the concerned parties and submit a comprehensive redevelopment plan. Upon such a plan having been prepared, copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld. Administrator. A copy of the same shall also be given to Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel, who shall then share it among all the other counsels.

33. Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel submits that Mr. Vipul Gaur has also submitted a redevelopment plan which has been filed with the Registry. Let the same be also brought on record and hard copy of the same be produced

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:18.07.2022 21:24:45

on the next date of hearing.

34. Accordingly, list on 26th August, 2022 at 2:30 pm, for the purpose of consideration of the redevelopment plan and for hearing the submissions in respect of the same.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JULY 15, 2022 DK/DJ/Rahul/AD/MS (corrected & released on 18th July, 2022)