Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th September, 2021
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal, Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj & Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates for R-1to 4 & 6.
Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate for R-7&8.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-11.
Mr. Aly Mirza & Mr. Prabhas Chandra, Advocates for R-10.
Ms. Sageeta Bharti, Standing Counsel for DJB (M-9811112863).
Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Yoginder Singh, Advocate for Applicant.
JUDGMENT
9 WITH + CM (M) 575/2021 MAM CHAND..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishan Gopal Chokkar, Advocate.
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gulia, Advocate for R-59 & 57. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for LRs of R-58. 10 WITH + CM (M) 323/2021 2021:DHC:2779 BISHAN SWAROOP..... Petitioner Through: Mr. L.S. Solanki, Advocate.
VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR PANDEY..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jitender Verma, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Anuroop P.S., Advocate for R-1. Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-3. 12 AND + CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021 POORNIMA SHARMA..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal & Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates. Ms. Garima Anand, Advocate.
VERSUS
VIPUL GAUR..... Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate. Appearances:- Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate in FAO 36/2021. Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Kamal Kant Bhardwaj, Advocate. Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate. Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate. Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Mr. Lakshay, Advocate. Mr. K.G. Chhokar, Advocate. Mr. Avinash Chaurasia, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (CRL) Mr. Arun Birbal, Standing counsel for SDMC Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Advocate for DJB. Mr. Thakur Sumit, Advocate. Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 08.09.2021 Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These matters relate to the Shri Kalkaji Mandir and are being heard from time to time. Vide order dated 16th July 2021, notices were issued to counsels appearing in the trial courts where more than 40 cases are pending in respect of the Kalkaji Mandir. In view of the said notice, Suit CS No.29016/2016 has been mentioned today. It is submitted that evidence has been concluded before the ld. ADJ and it may be clarified that the ld. ADJ can proceed to adjudicate the matter finally. It is clarified that since the suit is listed for final arguments before the ADJ, the said matter may proceed further. CM (M) 575/2021 & CM APPLs.29013-14/2021
3. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 30th September, 2020, passed by the ADJ-II, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter, “trial court”), vide which the application of the Petitioner (who was the Respondent No. 2 before the trial court) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for auction of the bari for performing puja sewa at the Kalkaji Mandir, commencing from 26th / 27th September, 2020, and concluding on 26th October 2020, has been rejected by the Trial Court.
4. The Petitioner - Shri Mam Chand, claims rights to his share in the Mandir’s offerings and collections which are claimed to have devolved upon him from his mother through his naani who in turn got rights through her father Mr. Mehar Nath, son of Mr Sukhi Nath. He claims that he belongs to the Gharbari Jogi (San Jogis in the Thok Jogians).
5. The submission of Mr. Chhokar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the rights of the naani were earlier recognized by the Court. However, vide the judgment dated 28th September, 1985 in MCA No.344/1985, it was held that Parsandi Devi, who is the mother of the present Petitioner, is not entitled to shares in the offerings of the Kalkaji Mandir.
6. The present bari, for which the application was moved before the trial court, was for the month of 26th September, 2020 to 27th October, 2020 during which period the Petitioner claims rights in bari. The Trial Court has observed that in order to allow the application of the Petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, it will be necessary to decide as to whether which of the parties have rights of puja sewa in the Kalkaji Mandir. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s application was rejected by the trial court. However, Mr. Chhokar, ld. Counsel, submits that the share of the Petitioner has been deposited before the Trial Court.
7. Accordingly, issue notice in the matter. Let notice be served upon the ld. counsels appearing for the Respondents in the Trial Court, by the Petitioner. The notice shall be issued dasti as also through email.
8. Mr. Rajesh, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of LRs of Respondent No. 58. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Mr. Tarun and Mr. Varun, Respondent Nos. 60 & 61, who are the children of Mr. Daya Ram.
9. List on 24th September 2021, at 2:30 PM. CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021
10. Let reply be filed in the present contempt petition within one week. Rejoinder, thereto, be filed with one week thereafter.
11. List on 24th September 2021. FAO 36/2021 & CM APPL.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25869-70/2021, 25884-85/2021, 26495/2021, CM APPL. 25868/2021 and CM APPL. 29121/2021
12. CM APPL. 25868/2021 has been filed on behalf of Ms. Monika Ganguly seeking impleadment. CM APPL. 29121/2021 has been on behalf of Shailender Kumar Gautam seeking impleadment in FAO 36/2021.
13. In these matters, various issues relating to Shri Kalkaji Mandir are being considered by this Court. One of the issues that has arisen is the share of women, including married sisters and married daughters. It is submitted by Mr. Neeraj Bharadwaj, ld. Counsel appearing for Mr. Vipul Gaur, that earlier judgments passed on this issue do not directly deal with the issue raised in this case. Insofar as in the current bari is concerned, there is a dispute in respect of the share of five women namely Ms. Indu Sharma, Ms. Ms. Purnima Sharma, Ms. Monika Ganguly, Ms. Shashi Sharma and Ms. Urmila Sharma, as also one of the sons of the sister.
14. Since these matters are currently being heard by this Court and the offerings, which have been received, are lying without being distributed in the Mandir’s locker, it is directed that the share all these five women i.e., Ms. Indu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Sharma, Ms. Monika Ganguly, Ms. Shashi Sharma and Ms. Urmila Sharma, shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court, until these issues are finally decided.
15. Insofar as the division of the remaining collections from the offerings in respect of the said bari is concerned, the same shall be done under the supervision of the Local Commissioner- Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate (M:
9811333871) (hereinafter, “LC”), who had earlier visited the temple and had interacted with the baridaars and the pujaris. The LC shall visit the Kalkaji Mandir on 17th September, 2021 at about 5:00 p.m. The LC shall be paid a fee of Rs. 50,000/- by the baridaars. The distribution of the respective shares to the baridaars shall take place before the LC. The baridaars shall receive their respective shares personally, or the same shall be received by the persons authorized by the baridaars, upon producing documents proving authorisation which would be verified by the LC.
16. Insofar as the main matter in FAO 36/2021 is concerned, Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel on behalf of Ms. Neeta Bhardwaj & ors, has again entered appearance and submits that he would be representing the Appellants in this matter.
17. Mr. Rohit Naagpal, ld. Counsel for the Respondents in FAO 36/2021 submits that the next bari concerned would require the shares of the parties in the main matter to be decided. Accordingly, insofar as the specific shares in FAO 36/2021, titled Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma is concerned, list the same separately, for hearing on 15th September, 2021 at 2:30 P.M.
18. Insofar as the aspect of maintenance, redevelopment and cleanliness of the Kalkaji Mandir premises is concerned, pursuant to the last order dated 3rd September 2021, Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. counsel for the Delhi Police and Mr. Arun Birbal, ld. Counsel for SDMC have appeared before the Court today.
19. Both the SDMC and Delhi Police are directed to conduct joint inspection and place a report before this Court as to the extent of unauthorised construction and unauthorised occupation in the entire temple complex of the Kalkaji Mandir. The report shall also give their recommendations as to how the access to and movement in the temple can be made smoother for the devotees and regulated better, especially in the forthcoming Navratras. The DCP, South Delhi and Commissioner, SDMC to depute respective teams for carrying out the joint inspection. Let the said report be placed before this Court within two weeks.
20. Mr. Arun Birbal, ld. Counsel, shall also place on record any plan which the SDMC has prepared, for the redevelopment and beautification of Kalkaji Mandir.
21. Further, Mr. Nagpal, ld. Counsel has also given a proposed plan for redevelopment, along with various suggestions. The said documents also contain a conceptual plan and a sample architectural model for redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir premises. He submits that the said plan has been prepared by a government approved architect. Mr. Nagpal, ld. Counsel shall place on record, an estimate of costs and the timelines in respect of such redevelopment, according to the plan proposed by him.
22. Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel, has made further submissions. Mr.
23. The Registry shall ensure that all the proposals filed by various parties, in respect of the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir, shall be placed in a separate folder called ‘proposals’ with the e-file of this matter. Secondly, insofar as the Local Commissioner’s reports are concerned, the same shall be placed in a separate folder, titled ‘LC reports’.
24. Issue notice to Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, ld. counsel, to place on record the affidavit called for from the Delhi Jal Board, in respect of sewerage lines which are stated to have been laid, as recorded in the last order dated 3rd September 2021. The DJB shall place on record the details of the tender etc. that were floated for execution of the sewerage work.
25. List FAO 36/2021 titled Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma separately, on 15th September 2021, specifically for hearing and determining the shares qua the concerned bari, at 2:30 P.M.
26. List all these matters and pending applications for further hearing on 24th September 2021, at 2:30 PM.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 dj/dk/Ak