ORDER :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14543 of 2006, in which a prayer for grant of interim relief was made and it was prayed that this Court may grant ex parte stay of the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12972 of 1984. Further prayer made was that Deoki Devi, be restrained from raising any construction over the land in dispute being part of Plot No. 212/2 situated on Vrindavan Chatikara Agra Main Road and from changing the nature of the land in dispute. This Court, while issuing notice on this petition on 11.09.2006, directed that status quo shall be maintained. Thereafter, leave was granted on 05.01.2009 and it was directed that the interim order was to continue.

2. Despite the interim orders, Deoki Devi raised construction whereafter the petitioner filed a complaint on 02.10.2010 before the Officer In-charge of Police Station Vrindavan and thereafter, filed Contempt Petition No. 258 of 2010 in this Court. Notice on the said contempt petition was issued to Deoki Devi on 08.10.2010 and it was again directed vide order dated 22.11.2010 that no construction of any nature – temporary or permanent, shall be raised. When the contempt proceedings were pending, Deoki Devi filed reply to the same. Initially she contested the contempt proceedings but then she admitted that in the year 2010 heavy rains had lashed the area of Mathura-Vrindavan and because there was imminent danger to the building, she had carried out some repair works. However, on 31.01.2011, learned counsel appearing for Deoki Devi submitted that the offending construction had since been demolished. An undertaking was also given by Deoki Devi that she would not raise any construction on the said land and therefore, the contempt had been purged. Thereafter, on 21.02.2011, this Court disposed of the Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 258 of 2010 in the following terms:

“After filing of the present petition, admittedly, substantial part of the offending construction carried out by the respondent – alleged contemnor has been demolished. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the subject property is now not habitable. Learned counsel further undertakes that whatever built up construction exists, the same shall not be used for human habitation till the disposal of the appeal.

In view of the statement/undertaking, no further orders are called for in the contempt petition. It stands closed and the notice issued is discharged.”

3. The second Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1758 of 2017 was filed alleging that Deoki Devi had again raised construction on the very same land and was residing therein. Along with the contempt petition, photographs were filed which clearly show that a new house has been constructed. Just outside this fresh construction there is also a sign board which advertises the fact that airconditioned and non-airconditioned rooms were available. Deoki Devi filed reply. According to her, she and her family members are residing in some other property, which is in close proximity to the subject property and the advertisement for letting out rooms was in respect of that property. However, this fact is not reflected from the sign board, which does not make mention of any other property. The only other defence taken by Deoki Devi was that she had demolished the construction earlier raised in the year 2011 and had ceased to use the house in terms of the undertaking given to this Court. She submits that because the property was lying abandoned, some bus operators had started parking their buses and some vagabonds started using the property for various activities. Even though she posted a guard there but due to the dilapidated nature of this property, anti-social elements were attracted to the same and, therefore, she had carried out some maintenance work. According to her, all that she has done is to maintain the property in a mann