(1) AN application for contempt and an application for review are considered analogously by consent of the parties.

(2) THE application for contempt is filed, inter alia, alleging willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated December 3, 1998 passed by Satya Brata Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Matter No. 4241 of 1991. The said application for contempt was filed on or about December 2,1999.

(3) AN application seeking review and re-calling of the said order dated december 3,1998, inter alia, directing mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to the premises No. 145 Sundernagar, new Delhi, is filed by the respondents in the writ petition on or about July 5, 2000.

(4) THE relevant facts leading to filing of the said applications are summarised as under :

Under the instructions of the Government of India, relating to the disposal of building sites in the New Capital of Delhi, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi granted a perpetual lease on March 31, 1958 to Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited, kanpur, in a plot of land measuring about 0. 179 acres being plot No. 145 in block No. 171 in the site acquired for erection of New Capital of Delhi.

(5) THE relevant clause for the purpose of deciding these applications runs as under :

"2 (13) The Lessee shall before any assignment or transfer of the said premises hereby demised or any part thereof obtain from the Lessor or the chief Commissioner of Delhi or such officer or body as the Lessor may authorise in this behalf approval in writing of the said assignment or transfer and all such assignees and transferees and the heirs of the Lessee shall be bound by all the covenants and conditions herein contained and be answerable in all respects therefor : provided also that the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase (i. e. the difference between the premium already paid and current market value) in the value of land at the time of transfer (whether such transfer is an entire site or only a part thereof), the amount to be recovered being 50 per cent, of the unearned increase. "

(6) ON or about September 8, 1965 the said Swadeshi Cotton Mills limited conveyed the said plot of land to Jawaharlal Rakyan, a Hindu Undivided family, comprising of Jawaharlal, Arun Kumar and Anil Kumar. Jawaharlal, as the karta of the said Hindu Undivided Family, applied for mutation in favour of the said Hindu Undivided Family. The property was mutated in the name of the said Hindu Undivided Family.

(7) ON September 10, 1983 Marble Trading Company Limited entered into an agreement for sale in relation to the said property with the said Hindu undivided Family.

(8) ON or about January 9, 1985 Jawaharlal, as the karta of the said hindu Undivided Family, applied under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, before the Competent Authority under the said Act. Such permission was granted by the Competent Authority on or about March 19,1985.

(9) ON or about May 27,1985 the said Jawaharlal, as the karta of the said Hindu Undivided Family, sought for permission to convey the said property to Marble Trading Company Limited. On or about November 20, 1985 such permission was granted.

(10) ON or about December 30, 1985 a sale deed was executed by jawaharlal, as the karta of the said Hindu Undivided Family, in favour of the marble Trading Company Limited.

(11) ACCORDINGLY, on November 6, 1986 the property was mutated in the name of the Marble Trading Company Limited.

(12) IN the meantime, however, on July 22, 1985 a special resolution was adopted to change the name of Marble Trading Company Limited to W. H. Targett (India) Limited. On July 29,1985 the Central Government accorded permission to Marble Trading Company Limited to change its name to W. H. Targett (India) Limited, as required under Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1956. Consequently, on or about August 13, 1985, a fresh certificate