Contempt petitions must adhere to procedural guidelines established in previous rulings; failure to apply under designated schemes negates claims.

JUDGMENT :

ALKA SARIN, J. 

CM-14169-CII-2025

1. This is an application for listing the application being CM-914-2019 filed for revival of the main contempt petition, which was dismissed on 22.11.2018.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he has no objection if the present application is allowed.

4. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the application being CM-914-2019 is taken on Board today itself.

CM-914-2019

5. This is an application for revival of the main contempt petition which was dismissed on 22.11.2018.

6. Notice of the application.

7. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he has no objection if the present application is allowed.

8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the main contempt petition is restored to its original number and status. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main contempt petition is also taken on Board today itself.

COCP-672-2017

9. Brief facts relevant to the present contempt petition are that the same has been filed for willful disobedience of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP-16393-1995.

10. In a nutshell, in CWP-10941 of 2010 titled as Bhagwan Singh & Ors. V/s State of Haryana & Ors. decided on 26.04.2012, it was directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the judgment passed in LPA-2096-2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. V/s Sandeep & Ors. decided on 25.04.2012, that the claim of all the co-sharers for allotment of a plot would be considered keeping in view their holding.

11. In LPA-2096-2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. V/s Sandeep & Ors. decided on 25.04.2012 the following directions were passed :

‘Thus, the present appeal as well as the other connected matters are disposed of with the following directions, in addition to the decision on the questions of law discussed above.

(i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional;

(ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees;

(iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land;

(iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement. If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc. The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee;

(v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time;

(vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without