NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS.  Vs KAMLESH SHARMA -Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~ 24 to 33, 36 to 54 and 2 (SB) to 5 (SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th January, 2024
+ 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, 63979/2023
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through:
versus
KAMLESH SHARMA ….. Respondent
Through:
+ CS(OS) 518/2021
+ CS(OS) 520/2021
+ CS(OS) 521/2021
+ CS(OS) 524/2021
+ CS(OS) 546/2021
+ CS(OS) 552/2021, I.As. 16148/2021 & 16149/2021
+ CS(OS) 557/2021
+ CS(OS) 559/2021
+ CS(OS) 56/2022 & I.A. 12340/2022
+ CS(OS) 57/2022
+ 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. Arun Birbal & Mr. Varun Gupta, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA. (M: 9810029802)
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advs. (M- 9350271061)
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.(M- 9971576388)
Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi (standing Counsel)
Ms. Samapika Biswal, Ms. Nidhisha Garg and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates (M: 9406951592).
Mr. Ashok Kumar Bahl and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Thakur, Advocates along with sh. Kamal Chhabara, AGM and Sh Sanjeet Kumar Dy. Manager for SBI, Tis hazari Delhi (M: 9990781015).
Mr Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan and Mrs Shreya Manjari Advs. (M: 9431643312).
Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, Architect.
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Adv. (M: 7042181838)
Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese & Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Advs. (M: 9953418874)
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Adv. (M:9891074686)
Mr. Udit Malik, Addl. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocates for GNCTD (M: 9999975448)
Mr Rishikesh Kr (ASC-GNCTD) with Ms Sheenu Priya, Mr Atik Gill, Mr Sudhir, Mr Sudhir Shukla, Advs. (M: 9911483629)
Dr. P. N. Mishra and Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advs. (M: 9213145580)
Mr. Tanay Hari Lal, Advocate.
Ms. Himanshi Kaushik, Architect.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Lakshay Bhardwaj, Mr. Kamal Kumar, Mr. Aashish Bhardwaj & Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocates.

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.
3. Today, the ld. Administrator has handed over a compilation of documents running into 38 pages which is a report filed in accordance to the order dated 22nd December, 2023 . The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:
31. The above plans are accordingly approved. Going forward, let the consultants be finalised by the ld. Administrator along with the two architects and other stakeholders.
32. The contour plans shall now be prepared and the team to oversee the development of Mandir shall also be finalised by ld. Administrator in consultation with the two architects. While implementing the redevelopment plan it shall be ensured that any trees which are already in the precincts would not be disturbed.
33. Let the layout plan submitted by the ld. Architect be forwarded by ld. Administrator to the Town Planning Department of the MCD. The officials of the MCD shall hold joint meeting with the architects and the ld. Administrator so that the first portion of the landscaping can be commenced and the process of getting approvals for the redevelopment of the Shri Kalkaji Mandir can commence. The MCD shall also inform the Architect if any approval is required from the Ridge Management Board, Delhi.
34. Let a report in this regard be placed before the Court on 12th January, 2024. The redevelopment plan shall also be forwarded to the Department of Delhi Fire Services at the appropriate stage.

4. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the report was to be filed in accordance to the following directions:
i. Finalisation of Consultants (structural, landscape, MEP, environment and traffic);
ii. Preparation of the Contour plans;
iii. Finalisation of the Oversight/ Supervisory Committee for the Development of Kalkaji Mandir;
iv. Report regarding approval from the Ridge Management Board.
Demarcation
5. The following are the persons present today in the Court:
1. Mr. J.B. Kapil, SDM
2. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Tehsildaar
3. Mr. Amit Yadav, Kanungo
4. Mr. Ramphal Verma, Patwari
5. Mr. Prakash Singh, Surveyor
6. They have handed over today the demarcation map which is stated to be in terms of order dated 4th December, 2023. Vide the said order the Tehsildar along with other officials and demarcation agency was directed to submit the final demarcation map on the basis of the available records. The said demarcation map has also been handed over to Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel for the DDA. Let a written report be placed on record by the office of the SDM in consultation with the other authorities as to the manner in which this demarcation has been prepared.
7. A copy of this demarcation map has been handed over to both the Architects i.e. Mr. Chauhan and Ms. Kaushik, who is the architect for the baaridars. Baridaars are also aware of the said demarcation. The committee consisting of various pujaris have been attending the meetings in respect of the demarcation which was continuously being undertaken. Except the Mahant Surender Nath, who is represented by the ld. Counsel, Dr. P.N. Mishra, there is no objection which has been raised in today�s hearing from any side in respect of the demarcation report. Mr. Jain submits that unless he has a copy of the demarcation report, he is unable to make a submission as to whether his client has any objection or not.
8. Mr. Chauhan submits that the demarcation map appears to be based on the present possession of the Mandir. He wishes to examine the same.
9. In any event, considering that the land of the Mandir is to be secured in terms of the previous orders dated 4th December, 2023. Let the erection of metal barricading of the boundary wall wherever it has not been completed, be now completed under the supervision of the Architect as also the ld. Administrator, in terms of the demarcation map handed over today.
10. The Architects may examine the demarcation map and place their comments, if any.
11. Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA shall also place his comments in respect of the demarcation, if any, within a period of two weeks.
12. The DDA officials shall cooperate with the revenue officers for filing of the written report, which the SDM has to file. The SDM has requested for two months for filing of the report. In view of the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir which is being supervised by this Court, the SDM is given six weeks� time to file the report.
13. The demarcation map is available in the office of the ld. Administration. If any party wishes to inspect the same, they are free to do so. If any comments/objections are to be filed in respect of the said report, the same shall be filed within the six weeks� time period, including the DDA.
14. The digital copy of the demarcation report may be supplied to any of the parties who request the same.
15. List for consideration of demarcation report on 12th March, 2024.
Redevelopment of the Mandir
16. Mr. Goonmeet Chauhan submits that the team of consultants is almost being finalised in consultation with Ms. Himanshi Kaushik and the ld. Administrator. In order for entering into the agreements with the said consultant team, Mr. Chauhan has suggested Mr. Rajesh Bahl, who is the retired Executive Director of NBCC to finalise the scope of work and draft the contracts with the consultants in a time bound manner. Ms. Himanshi Kaushik wishes to meet him.
17. The two architects shall amongst themselves finalise if they need any professional help for drafting and finalisation of the contracts.
18. Insofar as appointment of Project Management Contractor/ Consultant (hereinafter �PMC�) is concerned, let the said task also be undertaken within a period of six weeks. By the next date of hearing, a complete list of consultants and the PMC be finalised so that the work of redevelopment can be commenced.
19. Ld. Administrator and the team of architects are free to go ahead and obtain all the requisite approvals for the redevelopment plan in accordance with the applicable laws including the MCD and any other authorities
Oversight Committee
20. As per the order dated 4th December, 2023, the ld. Administrator had recommended the constitution of a Supervisory/ Oversight Committee to oversee the daily issues that may arise in the re-development of the Kalkaji Mandir under the overall supervision of this Court. The Committee needs to be constituted of 10 persons belonging to different Thoks and Thullas.
21. Today, Ld. Administrator has recommended the constitution of oversight committee for the purpose of overseeing the redevelopment with the specific mandate. After holding several meetings, the constitution of the oversight committee has been suggested with a total of ten members. However there was a dispute between the names suggested as per the 14th report. An objection relating to the same was raised by Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj on behalf of the pujaris stating that the said names were proposed without any consultation with the large number of pujaris and stakeholders. In furtherance to this he proposed a new set of names. The Court would like to hear submissions on the oversight committee.
22. List for this purpose on 20th February, 2024.
23. On the said date, applications filed by the hawkers shall also be considered.
Demolition of Chabutras
24. Vide order dated 4th December, 2023, the Court approved the demolition of chabutras, removal of malwa and levelling of premises within the temple precepts. An amount of Rs.10,81,600/- was also approved for the same. However, it is submitted that a more competitive offer of Rs. 9 lakhs has been received from another party.
25. In light of the same, the ld. Administrator is given the discretion to engage whichever contractor has given the most favourable bids for demolition of the same.
Land Currently under the possession of the DDA
26. The DDA is given one last and final opportunity to comply with the order dated 4th December, 2023. In respect of the same if no affidavit is filed by the DDA, the Court would proceed further to pass orders.
27. List on 12th March, 2024.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2024
Rahul/mr/ks/bh

(Corrected & released on 16th January, 2024)

FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 2