NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. vs KAMLESH SHARMA

$~ 38 to 70 & 2(SB) to 5(SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 4th December, 2023
+ FAO 36/2021, CM APPLs. 57032/2023 & 57033/2023 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, 32296/2022, 34552/2022, 34553/2022, 39754-55/2022, 40548/2022, 43723/2022, 53179/2022, 876/2023, 14509/2023, 15812/2023, 15813/2023 13658/2023, 22230/2023, 25196/2023, 27387/2023, 28558/2023, 28559/2023, 29981/2023, 31169/2023, 40347-49/2023, 41312-13/2023, 52644-46/2023, 61839/2023
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through:
versus
KAMLESH SHARMA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr R. R. Kumar, Adv. (M. 9891296281)
+ CS(OS) 518/2021
+ CS(OS) 520/2021
+ CS(OS) 521/2021
+ CS(OS) 524/2021
+ CS(OS) 528/2021
+ CS(OS) 546/2021
+ CS(OS) 552/2021, I.As. 16148/2021 & 16149/2021
+ CS(OS) 553/2021
+ CS(OS) 557/2021
+ CS(OS) 559/2021
+ CS(OS) 683/2021
+ CS(OS) 56/2022 & I.A. 12340/2022
+ CS(OS) 57/2022
+ CS(OS) 531/2021 & I.A. 9648/2023
+ CS (OS) 2499/2010
+ CS (OS) 511/2021
+ CS (OS) 526/2021 & I.A. 7511/2022
+ CS (OS) 527/2021, I.As. 1717/2022 & 1718/2022
+ CS (OS) 533/2021, I.As. 1721/2022 & 1722/2022
+ CS (OS) 535/2021 & I.A. 7552/2022
+ CS (OS) 538/2021, I.As. 1725/2022 & 1726/2022
+ CS (OS) 539/2021, I.As. 9063/2022 & 9064/2022
+ CS (OS) 540/2021 & I.A. 7940/2022
+ CS (OS) 541/2021, I.As. 1723/2022 & 1724/2022
+ CS (OS) 542/2021, I.As. 9031/2022 & 9032/2022
+ CS (OS) 544/2021, I.As. 1719/2022 & 1720/2022
+ 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 & 9982/2022
+ CS (OS) 55/2022, CCP(O) 91/2023, I.As. 12299/2022, 12300/2022, 12341/2022, 12342/2022, 19288/2022 & 24076/2023
+ CS (OS) 240/2023
+ CS (OS) 284/2023, I.As.10300-04/2023
+ CM (M) 323/2021, CM APPLs. 14178/2021, 20945/2021, 20949/2021 & 40269/2021
+ CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021  
+ RFA 413/2021 

Appearances:
Mr. Shashank Garg, Mr. Aman Gupta, Mr. Ravi Sharma and Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advocates for R-43 to 50(M: 9968236101).
Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA. (M: 9810029802)
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Satish Sahai, Advocate (M- 7840890660).
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj, Ms. Garima Anand & Mr. Nitin Panwar, Advocates.
Mr. Thakur Sumit, Advocate (M-9968454481).
Mr. K.G. Chhokar, Advocate (M-9896030124).
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. (M:9312710547)
Mr Anuroop P S, Advocate.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma & Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocates.
Ms. Sumant Bharadwaj, Mr. Shreyansh Jain and Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Advocates (M: 9874235750).
Ms Sonia Singhani and Ms Vidhi Gupta, Advocates for DDA (M: 9810172501).
Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Manisha A. Narain, Mr. Varun Maheshwari & Mr. Manan Soni, Advocates (M: 9971769673).
Ms. Samapika Biswal, Ms. Nidhisha Garg and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates (M: 9406951592).
Mr. Siddharth Panda Standing Counsel for MCD (M: 9891488088).
Mr. Ashok Kumar Bahl and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Thakur, Advocates along with AR of SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi (M: 9810019614, 9990781015).
Ms. Himanshi Kaushik Architect (M: 8448207897).
Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Advocate along with Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr Anuj Chaturvedi and Mrs Shreya Manjari Advs. (M: 9431643312).
Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauha, Architect.

CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh (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.
CM APPLs.57032/2023 & 41312/2023
3. This is an application seeking release of the sum of money which is deposited in Suit No.146/05 (new no. CS SCJ 96542/16) titled Gian Prakash v. Har Saroop Sharma. The memo of parties in the said suit is as under:
Plaintiffs
“1. Sh. Gian Prakash Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Jai Lal Sharma R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17
2. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Jai Lal Sharma R/o 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17
3. Sh. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Shu. Jai Lal Sharma R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17
4 . Sh. Satish Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Jai Lal Sharma R/o 593-A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17

Defendants
1) Sh. Harswroop Sharma S/o Late Tula Ram Sharma R/o 673, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17
2) Sh. Narinder Kumar (deceased) S/o Late Tula Ram Now Represented by
A. Smt. Sharda
W/o Sh. Narinder Kumar
B) Lokesh (Minor Son)
S/o Late Sh. Narinder Kumar
Both R/o 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17”

4. The present application has been filed by the legal heirs of Defendant No. 2 – Mr. Narinder Kumar (deceased) who are his wife and his son namely Mrs. Sharda and Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj. The relief prayed for in the plaint are as under:
“1) A decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs declaring them to be entitled for half share (2 pie out of 4 pie out of 1 anna) in the joint bari of parties belonging to Shri Ram Swaroop in mandir Shri Kalkaji for performance of puja sewa and realization of tehbazari and other profits attached to the temple in the shashmi bari, monthly bari and lond bari.
2) A decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to restraints from interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs half share (2 pie out of 4 pie out of 1 anna) in the joint bari of parties belonging to the share of Shri Ram Swaroop in Mandir Shri Kalkaji for performance of puja sewa and realization of tehbazari and other profits attached to the temple in the shashmi bari, monthly bari and lond bari.
And the defendants be further restrained from interfering in the rights of the plaintiffs from receiving their half share (2 pie share out of 4 pie out of 1 anna) in the forthcoming monthly bari of baisakh vikrami samvat 2062 which is to commence w.e.f. midnight of 19-04-2005 ending on midnight 19-05-2005 for performance of Puja Sewa and realization of tehbazari with other profits of Mandir Shri Kalkaji be auctioned among the parties and highest bidder be allowed to perform Puja Sewa and realization of tehbazari etc. after distributing the ½ share of the plaintiffs.”

5. It is the case of the Applicant is that vide order dated 14th September 2005, the following issues were framed in the suit:
“1) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
2)Whether plaintiffs have concealed the material facts, if so its effect? OPD.
3)Whether any will was executed By Sh. Gauri Shanker in favor of defendants? OPD.
4) Whether defendants have succeeded to the rights in pooja Sewa and offering of Sh. Gauri Shanker on the basis of will dated 28.9.79? OPD.
5) Whether the right in Pooja Sewa and offering can be, bequeathed by way of will? OPD.
6)Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of decree of declaration, as sought in prayer 1? OPP.
7) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of decree of permanent injunction, as sought in prayer 2? OPP.
8)Relief”

6. Further, vide order dated 13th April, 2005, an interim arrangement had been put in place by the Trial Court in the following terms:
“4. The defendants in their WS, have denied the claim of the plaintiffs regarding their half share. They have stated that since beginning plaintiffs have been receiving only 1/3 share. They have further mentioned, order passed in a different suit bearing no 311/96, wherein an auction was held and the Plaintiffs had received 1/3 share, while the defendants had received 2/3 share amount. Defendants have further filed a copy of application u/s 151 CPC, moved on behalf of plaintiff no 2 herein in the afore-stated case. They have also filed copy of receipt given by the defendants to the auctioneer in that suit.
I have heard the contentions of both the parties. I have also gone through the documents filed by both the parties in this suit. The dispute involved in the present case is regarding share of both the parties, for this purpose plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration. Now as per the common prayer of the parties, the present bari commencing from 19.4.05 has already been auctioned between the parties. Defendant no 1 has given highest bid of Rs. 42, 70,000/- (Rs. Forty two lacs seventy thousand) . At this stage rights of the parties can not be decided without holding a trial in this case, however, for the purpose of disbursement of the amount between the parties, I deem it fit to give due consideration to the past record. The records of another suit bearing no 311/96 is not disputed. Even plaintiffs have not disputed the application dated 31.5.96, moved by plaintiff no 2 in that proceeding. In para 2 of this application, it is stated by the applicant ie, plaintiff no 2 that the auction money in that suit was disbursed among the parties as per their customary share. Defendants have filed and stated that they had received 1/3 share each in the said proceeding, while plaintiffs had received another 1/3-share. This fact has not been successfully rebutted by the Plaintiffs that they have received only 1/3 share in that proceedings. Plaintiffs have not produced a single document to show that at any point of time they had received one half share. In such circumstances, at this stage I do not find it fit to grant half share to the plaintiffs, as it shall amount to virtually accepting their whole claim, as made in the present suit. While from the records of suit no 311/96, it is clear that defendants had received 2/3 share earlier, therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no need to interfere in that practice being followed between the parties, till the question of share between the parties is decided in the preset suit.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application of Plaintiffs, as far as giving half share to them is concerned.
For the present bari, bid has been given for the amount of Rs. 42,70,000/- (Forty-two lacs seventy thousand) and therefore defendant no 1, who has given this highest bid is directed to paid 1/3 share of it to the plaintiffs. Defendants shall take 2/3 share at this juncture, however, it shall be subject to final findings of the question involved in the present suit. Therefore, defendants shall furnish bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 7, 17,000/- in this court. Receipt be filed on 15.4.05. Put up on the same date for further proceedings.”

7. The above amount which was to be deposited by way of a bank guarantee was modified vide order dated 15th April, 2005 to a fixed deposit for every baari qua the relevant share. The said order reads as under:
“Receipt of amount received by the parties to this suit filed by Defendant-1
Both the parties submit that disputed amount comes to Rs. 7,11,666/-
In such circumstances, order dated 13.04.2005 is modified to the extent that defendant shall furnish F/D for the amount of Rs. 7,12,000/- in the Court for one year, which shall be subject to renewal, in the peculiar facts of this case.
Same be furnished at 2 pm on 16.04.2005.
Put up for 16.04.2005 at 2pm.”

8. Thus, the amount of Rs.7,12,000/- or such other amounts which would constitute the disputed amount i.e., the difference between half share and 1/3rd share are stated to have been deposited continuously.
9. A settlement agreement dated 7th March, 2023 was entered into in the said suit between the following parties:
First Parties
“l. Har Saroop Sharma S/o Late Tula Ram R/o H.No. 674, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017
2. Sharda W/o Late Narinder Kumar R/o 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017
3. Lokesh Bhardwaj S/o Late Narinder Kumar R/o 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi- 110017”

Second Parties
1. Rajni Sharma W/o Late Gian Prakash Sharma R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017
2. Sudhir Bhardwaj S/o Late Gian Prakash R/o 676, Chirag Delhi , New Delhi – 110017
3. Rahu Bhardwaj S/o Late Gian Prakash R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017
4. Bhumika Sharma D/o Late Gian Prakash R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017
5. R. K. Bhardwaj S/o Late Jai Lal Sharma Rio 593, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi -110017
6. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Jai Lal Sharma R/o 676, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017
7. Satish Bhardwaj S/o Late Jai Lat Sharma R/o 593-A, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi- 110017”
10. As per the said agreement, the registered will of Mr. Gauri Shankar (deceased) in favour of Mr. Har Saroop Sharma and Mr. Narinder Kumar (deceased) was accepted and admitted by all parties. Pursuant thereto, a no objection was given for release of the amounts lying deposited in Court in favour of the first parties in terms of clause 24 of the agreement which is extracted below:
“24. That the Second Parties have no objection to the entitlement of First Parties for receiving and for withdrawal of the disputed share/amount of Lt. Shri Gauri Shanker which is deposited in the form of FDRs from time to time in CS SCJ 96542/2016 titled as Gian Parkash (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors. Versus Har Saroop Sharma & Ors. If need be, they undertake to appear in the Court and give necessary no objection before the Hon’ble Court. The first parties shall be entitled for disputed share of Gaud Shanker. ”

11. Thereafter, vide order dated 16th October, 2023 notice was issued to Ms. Rajni Sharma, Mr. Sudhir Bhardwaj, Mr. Rahu Bhardwaj, Mr. Bhumika Sharma, Mr. R. K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Har Saroop Sharma and Mr. Satish Bhardwaj. Notice was also issued through counsels, dasti.
12. Today, it is submitted on behalf of the applicants by Mr. Tikku, ld. Senior Counsels along with Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, ld. counsel that the amounts lying deposited of 11 FDRs deserve to be released in favour of the legal heirs of Mr. Narender Kumar (deceased) and in favour of Mr. Har Swaroop Sharma s/o late Shri Tula Ram. Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate is present in person and submits that he has no objection to the same. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Satish Bhardwaj also submits that his client has also no objection to the release of the said FDRs.
13. Accordingly, the total sum of the 11 FDRs which is to the tune of Rs.1,08,96,045/- along with any interest accrued thereon is to be divided between the heirs of Sh. Narender Kumar (deceased) and his elder brother Sh. Harsh Swaroop Sharma S/o Late Shri Tula Ram.
14. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Lakshya Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel represents legal heirs of Mr. Narinder Kumar (deceased) and Mr. Satish Sahai, ld. Counsel represents Mr. Harswroop Sharma. Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj and Mr. Kush Bhardwaj are also present in person.
15. Since there is no objection on behalf of any of the parties and keeping the above factual background in mind, the applications for release of amounts is allowed. The Registrar General is directed to release the said sum in the following manner:
(i) All the 11 FDRs along with interest accrued thereon shall be encashed.
(ii) 25% of the amount shall be paid to Mrs. Sharda. w/o Mr. Narender Kumar (deceased).
(iii) 25% of the amount shall be paid to Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj s/o Mr. Narender Kumar (deceased).
(iv) 50% of the amount shall be paid to Mr. Har Saroop Sharma s/o Late Shri Tula Ram.
(v) The said parties are also agreeable to make the following contribution to the Shri Kalkaji Mandir for re-development.
Mr. Har Saroop Sharma – Rs. 5 lakhs
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj – Rs. 2.5 lakhs and
Mrs. Sharda – Rs. 2.5 lakhs
The Registrar General shall accordingly deduct the said amounts from the respective payments to be made to the above parties and deposit the same into the account for the redevelopment of Kalkaji mandir.
16. The amounts be released within two weeks.
17. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of.
CM APPL.57033/2023 & CM APPL. 40349/2023 ( for exemption) in FAO 36/2021

18. The present applications have been filed seeking exemption from filing certified copies legible and typed copies of annexures at this stage.
19. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
CM APPL. 40347/2023, 40348/2023, 52644/2023 and 52645/2023 (for direction) in FAO 36/2021

20. These are applications filed by various street hawkers seeking permission to sell their goods in the Kalkaji Mandir premises on the two main streets, namely, Ram piyao side and Market way.
21. It is submitted that they have been hawking for a long time outside the Kalkaji Mandir.
22. Issue notice to the MCD. Mr. Panda accepts notice.
23. Let MCD file a reply in these applications after verifying the credentials of these hawkers.
24. List on 15th December, 2023.
CM APPL. 61839/2023 in FAO 36/2021
25. This is an application filed on behalf of 19 shopkeepers seeking permission to sell their goods in the Kalkaji Mandir premises on the two main streets, namely, Ram piyao side and Market Way.
26. Mr. Alok Kumar, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicants submits that the applicants in this application do not pray for vending their wares within the mandir premises but outside the mandir premises on the precincts. He also submits that the submission recorded in para 3 of the order dated 30th November, 2023 may not be attributed to him.
27. Issue notice.
28. Let the ld. Administrator look into it and place his report on the next date of hearing.
29. List on 15th December, 2023.
FAO 36/2021
30. Ld. Administrator’s 14th report has been received. The same has been perused by the Court.
Supervisory/Oversight Committee.
31. Ld. Administrator has recommended constitution of a Supervisory/ Oversight Committee to oversee the daily issues that may arise in the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir under the overall supervision of this Court. Ld. Administrator has suggested including 10 persons belonging to different Thoks and Thullas. The names of the same have been provided in the report of the ld. Administrator.
32. The various Pujaris and Baridars as also the architects are clear that two Committees would need to be formed i.e., the Re-development Committee and secondly, the Oversight Committee.
33. The Court is of the opinion that the mandate of the said committees has to be clear so as to not interfere with any of the work which may be carried out by the architects and the other consultants.
34. Let the concerned stakeholders meet the ld. Administrator and propose the constitution of both these Committees along with the proposed mandate of these Committees.
35. Thereafter, let the ld. Administrator recommend the constitution and mandate of the Supervisory/ Oversight Committee as also the Re-development Committee.
Demarcation
36. Mr. Amit Chabria, Tehsildaar along with Mr. Amit Yadav, Kanungo and Mr. Rampal Verma, Patwari are present in Court.
37. The demarcation agency viz. M/s Measure Techno Services Ltd. has submitted an interim report dated 28th November, 2023 along with a draft digitalized map of the land relating to Kalkaji Mandir and the adjoining area of Bahapur village. The demarcation of the Kalkaji Mandir land has been partially conducted. The challenge which the said agency is facing is that the field book, Sijra and Masabi are in either torn condition or are not available.
38. The Court has repeatedly queried the above mentioned officials who are present in the Court if the said record is available with them, the answer is that they are attempting to procure the same from different agencies. Since the said officials are revenue officials who are the actual custodians of the original revenue records, it is clear to the Court that apart from the records which are already available with them, no further record is likely to become available.
39. Accordingly, it is directed that the Tehsildar along with the other officials and the demarcation agency shall now submit the final demarcation to this Court on the basis of the available records as also the following reports/affidavits and accompanying documents:
a. previous demarcation report prepared by M/s Dhyani Consultant dated 17th September, 2012 in CS(OS) 284/2023 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj and Ors. v. DDA and Ors. and, the interim report dated 28th November, 2023 issued by the demarcation agency.
b. Affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in SLP No.32452/2013.
c. If there are any other relevant reports, documents or affidavits in any other proceedings, the same may be supplied by all the parties/their counsel to the Tehsildar.
40. The demarcation report shall be submitted to the ld. Administrator and to other parties by 5th January, 2024.
41. The said final demarcation report shall be presented to the Court on the next date of hearing and if any parties have any objection in respect thereof including the DDA, they are free to make submissions before the Court.
42. List on 12th January, 2024.
Redevelopment of Shri Kalkaji Mandir
43. As per the 14th report of the ld. Administrator, the final redevelopment plans have almost been agreed between both the architects Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan and Ms. Himanshi Kaushik.
44. Mr. Chauhan, ld. Architect submits that the consultants are also being finalised. He, further, submits that the three authorities whose approvals would be needed are MCD, the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) and the Ridge Management Board.
45. Accordingly, let the final plan be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing.
46. Mr. Panda, ld. Counsel appears on behalf of MCD. Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel appears for DDA. A copy of the master plan be also supplied to Mr. Panda, ld. Counsel and Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel.
47. Let notice be issued to the DUAC and Ridge Management Board for appearance on the next date so that a timeline can be fixed for consideration of the final master plan and for approvals of the same.
48. In addition, notice be issued to Mr. Santosh Tripathi, ld. Standing Counsel for the GNCTD for approvals, by the Department of Delhi Fire Service.
49. Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel has taken the responsibility of serving the nominated/standing counsels of the said authorities.
Land currently under the possession of the DDA
50. Ld. Counsels for the Baridars have brought to the notice of the Court that vide letter dated 19th December, 1994, the Pujari, Kalkaji Mandir was communicated by Mr. C. Banerjee, Chief Engineer (SEZ), DDA that the DDA has taken up development of some portion of the trust land adjoining the DDA parking. It is also submitted that there are two shops sold by the DDA which are currently operating in the said land. The extract of the said letter is set out below:
“Please refer to the inspection of Shri. S.P. Jaknanwal, Vice-Chairman, DDA on 15.12.1994 when he emphasized the need of completing the small development work taken up in a portion of trust land, adjoining DDA parking. It was explained that in order to give a good environment, it is essential that proper maintenance of surrounding areas of Kalkaji Temple was carried out and is a special offer, DDA has taken up a development of this portion along the parking. It was also decided during the discussion that after laying the kota stone flooring and two kiosks constructed by DDA/ would be handed over to the Trust for their utilization.”
51. Further vide letter dated 17th January, 1995, it was confirmed that any development work which had been undertaken by the DDA on the land of the Kalkaji Mandir shall be the exclusive property of the Mandir. The said letter is extracted below:
“With reference to your letter No. KJ/Dev/W/B/JI/1995-96 dt. 12.1.1995 on the above subject, the undersigned on behalf of DDA hereby come forward to appreciate your gesture regarding proposed development works for around beautification of Mandir Shri Kalkaji, so as to provide better public conveniences / facilities to the pilgrims coming to the temple from all parts of India and abroad.
It is hereby ensured that all building as well as development works which have already been executed or proposed to be executed on the land of Madir, Shri Kalkaji, after completion, it shall be the exclusive property of Madir Shri Kalkaji.
We hope that you will kindly cooperate with us for allowing the execution of proposed development / building works to be got executed by DDA on the land of Mandir Shri Kalkaji.”

52. Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel appearing for the DDA shall obtain instructions and file an affidavit on behalf of the DDA as to how much of the area where the parking is currently being run or two shops are located is the Kalkaji Mandir land.
Erection of gates at the mandir premises and demolition of Chabutras
53. In the 14th report filed by the ld. Administrator, release of some fund has been sought for erection of gates at the Kalkaji Mandir premises and demolition of Chabutras. The relevant part of the said report is as under.
“42. The undersigned had in the previous Report No. 13 dated 04.10.2023 (paragraphs 36-44) apprised this Hon’ble Court that after discussions with the pujaris it had been agreed that a gate be installed at the Ram Piyao side. The Secretary to the undersigned had accordingly called for quotations for the installation of the gate at the Ram Piyao side and barricading of the adjacent entryways.
43. That in the subsequent meeting with the pujaris dated 05.11.2023, it was unanimously agreed that the gate at the Ram Piyao side ought to be installed immediately in the first instance. The pujaris were requested to provide further quotations for the said purpose. Copy of the pujari townhall meeting dated 05.11.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure J.
44. The office has received two quotations for installation of the gate at the Ram Piyao side and barricading of the adjacent entryways. No other quotations have been received from the pujaris in this regard. The lowest quote received is for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Satish Kumar Fabricators.
45. That this Hon’ble Court may therefore be pleased to sanction an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards erecting the gate at Ram Piyao side as well as barricading the adjacententryways.
…………..
Demolition of Chabutras
50. The undersigned had in the previous Report No. 13 dated 04.10.2023 (paragraphs 51-55) apprised this Hon’ble Court that in respect of the demolition of the chabutras in the Mandir it was agreed that the same shall be deferred until after the Navratras from 15.10.2023 till 24.10.2023 and that all the chabutras shall be demolished simultaneously after ascertaining the purpose for which the space shall be used and providing for barricading arrangements.
51. In the subsequent meeting dated 05.11.2023, it was agreed that the demolition of chabutras shall be done simultaneously along with erection of the gate at the Ram Piyao side. The demolition, removal of malba, levelling/ repair as well as making of arrangements in place of the chabutras shall be done in a phase-wise manner. The pujaris were requested to provide further quotations for the said purpose.
52. The office has received 7 quotations for demolition of chabutras, removal of malba and levelling of the floor. The lowest quote received is a sum of Rs. 10,81,600/- from Shiv Kumar & Co..
53. That this Hon’ble Court may therefore be pleased to sanction an amount of Rs. 10,81,600/- in respect of demolition of the Chabutras, removal of malba and levelling of the floor.”
54. In view of the above, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is approved for erection of the gates from the Ram Piyao side. The Court also approves the demolition of chabutras, removal of malwa and levelling of premises within the temple precepts. An amount of Rs. 10,81,600/- is also approved for the same.
55. The amounts for these two purposes shall be released by the Registrar General in favour of the ld. Administrator.
56. List CS(OS) 55/2022 on 19th December, 2023.
57. List for consideration of the redevelopment and for approval of the master plan on 15th December, 2023 at 2:30 p.m.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2023
dk/dj/mr/rahul/kt

FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 2