IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that compliance with its orders is mandatory, and failure to do so constitutes contempt, regardless of subsequent legal challenges.

JUDGMENT :

(Dharmesh Sharma, J.)

1. The petitioners are seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent for the alleged wilful disobedience of the directions passed by this Court contained in the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.3359/2017 titled “Ramesh Lakhwani vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.”

2. In a nutshell, the said writ petition came to be filed by the original petitioner, namely Shri Ramesh Lakhwani, who expired on 11.05.2017 leaving behind the present petitioners who happen to be his Class-I legal heirs, comprising of his widow and two children, i.e., a son and a daughter.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts reveal that a plot bearing No. J-221, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”), was initially allotted to one Shri Ranjit Singh under the ‘South Delhi Residential Scheme’ by the respondent/DDA, and a perpetual lease deed was executed in his favour on 20.10.1980. Thereafter, the original Petitioner, Shri Ramesh Lakhwani, acquired leasehold rights upon the subject plot through a registered Agreement to Sell dated 13.01.1980 executed by the original allottee i.e., Shri Ranjit Singh in favour of the original petitioner, and a registered General Power of Attorney dated 28.02.1980 executed in favour of the brother of the original petitioner, namely Shri Laxman Lakhwani. It is claimed that the original petitioner thereafter constructed a building on the said plot after obtaining the requisite permissions and has been in possession of the property for over four decades.

4. In the year 2012, the original petitioner applied to the respondent/DDA for the conversion of the subject plot from leasehold to freehold, and duly paid a sum of ?2,31,488/- to the respondent/DDA as “conversion charges” for the subject plot. However, the process got stalled when the respondent/DDA, via a letter dated 06.06.2012, advised the petitioner to first seek clearance from the Land and Building Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [‘GNCTD’] citing an alleged issue with a communication received from the said department of the GNCTD, dating back to 17.02.1981. It is stated that despite multiple representations and legal notices from the petitioner, the concerned authorities failed to act, eventually leading to the filing of the main writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.3359/2017 in which the order of which contempt is presently alleged, came to be passed. In the said writ proceedings, this court vide order dated 18.03.2021 inter alia directed the respondent/DDA to examine the original petitioner’s application for converting the land from leasehold to freehold as the requisite charges for conversion had already been paid, and further instructed the respondent/DDA to complete the conversion process by 30.06.2021. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the said order dated 18.03.2021 which reads as under: -

“8. The learned counsel for the DDA/R-1 submits that despite issuance of a letter to the petitioner in 2012 to seek clearance from the Land and Building Department, and the aforesaid letter dated 14.08.2014 to the GNCTD apropos the present status of the investigation carried out in the aforesaid cases and to verify the genuineness of the recommendees, the Government has kept silent. Apparently, the Government has nothing to say in the matter. Therefore, its aforesaid communication dated 17.02.1981 to the DDA will be presumed to be without basis and is to be disregarded.

9. In view of the above, the DDA is directed to disregard the said communication and examine the Petitioner’s case for conversion of the leasehold land into free-hold upon payment of requisite charges.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as demanded, an amount of Rs.2,31,488/-, has already been paid to the DDA on 01.03.2012. Let the DDA intimate the petitioner if any further information or documents are required, in 2 weeks from