Point of Law : If such wilful disobedience is made out, it is duty of Court to take cognizance of same as contempt - Conduct of Contemnor must be of such nature which undermines dignity of Court and outrages majesty of law.

JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

CM Appl. 42650/2018

1. The instant application has been filed for recalling the order dated 16.03.2018 by which the contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017 was withdrawn.

2. The petitioner had filed CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017 alleging that the respondents are not implementing the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5198/2016.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under :-

i. The petitioner's land had been acquired by the Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration in the year 1968. At the relevant time, apart from the compensation that has to be paid, persons whose lands were acquired were to be allotted residential plot/commercial space/shop, or compassionate employment to one of their family members for rehabilitating the family who lost their lands.

ii. It is stated that the petitioner's grandfather, whose land had been acquired had applied for allotment of an alternate plot. The petitioner, who succeeded his grandfather, started pursuing the allotment to be made to him in terms of the rehabilitation policy. However, as the petitioner's request was not included in the seniority list of allotment, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 2019/2013. On being informed that his name was being included, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

iii. It is stated that after the Petitioner’s name was included in the seniority list, his name was thereafter rejected on the ground that the recorded owner, i.e. the petitioner's grandfather, had not applied for an alternate plot in his lifetime. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 2695/2014 challenging the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Land & Building Department by which the petitioner's case for alternate allotment was rejected. This Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and directed the Land & Building Department to reconsider the representation of the petitioner.

iv. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Land & Building Department vide communication dated 06.04.2016 made a recommendation to the DDA regarding allotment of a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds. to the petitioner.

v. Since nothing was being done for the allotment of plot, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 5198/2016. On 30.05.2016, W.P.(C)5198/2016 was disposed of by this Court directing the DDA to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation with the DDA and prayed for allotment of a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds at Sector 23, Pocket 4 & 7, Dwarka, Delhi. However, as the representation was not considered within the stipulated time limit, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by way of the instant contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017.

vi. Notice in the contempt petition was issued on 12.05.2017. The order sheet reveals that when Draw of Lots was being held for allotment of plots at Dwarka, the petitioner filed CM. APPLN.19528/2017 seeking the following prayer:-

“To reserve the plot No. 31, Block-C, Pkt-8, Sector-17, Dwarka, New Delhi having area of 207 sq. mt in favour of the petitioner till the disposal of the present writ petition;”

vii. On 23.05.2017, learned counsel for the DDA assured the Court that the position of the vacant plots at Dwarka would be disclosed, and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the Draw of Lots will be held and the petitioner will be deprived of a plot was uncalled for.

viii. On 17.08.2017, this Court was informed that there were 104 plots admeasuring 250 sq. yds. but no time had been fixed for the Draw of Lots. It was stated that the seniority list was yet to be finalised.

ix. During the course of the hearing, this Court was informed that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 of the seniority list for the allotment of plot and this Court vide order dated 17.08.