Civil contempt requires willful disobedience, which was not established as the counsel's statement did not constitute an undertaking.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the opposite parties for violating and willfully disobeying the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short “NOIDA”) as recorded in the order dated 28.03.2023 read with orders dated 17.03.2023 and 26.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 8228 of 2023.

2. The applicant, before this Court, had filed Writ-C No. 8228 of 2023 against NOIDA claiming that without acquiring land of the applicant being Khasra No. 1018 and 1019, situated at Village Baraula Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Buddh Nagar, the opposite parties had included such land for sale of building plots by it.

3. The matter was taken up on 17.03.2023 and the Division Bench directed the counsel for the opposite parties to seek instructions in the matter, and posted the matter as fresh on 28.03.2023 and following order was passed:

“The grievance is that without acquiring the petitoner's land of Khasra No. 1018 and 1019 situated at village Baraula, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, the respondents have included such land for sale of building plots by it. Argument is that such action clearly amounts to violation of petitioner's constitutional right under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India.

Shri K.N. Singh, appearing for the respondent is allowed one weeks time to obtain instructions.

List as fresh once again on 28th March, 2023.”

4. On 28.03.2023, learned counsel appearing for the NOIDA stated that neither the land of the applicant was acquired nor its possession has been disturbed over it. The applicant had relied upon a demarcation report dated 09.01.2019, but the Court ordered for a fresh demarcation of the applicant’s property with reference to the purported report dated 09.01.2019 in presence of the officials of the NOIDA. On 28.03.2023, following order was passed:

“At present, pursuant to last order, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA states, neither the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the authority nor its possession has been disturbed over it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a document described as the demarcation report dated 9.1.2019. Though the same is not accepted at this stage, we provide, in case the petitioner approaches Tehsildar, Dadri along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today, the said officer shall ensure fresh demarcation of the petitioner's property with reference to the purported report dated 9.1.2019 in the presence of the officers of the NOIDA on 27/28.4.2023.

Subject to any grievance surviving, matter may be considered on the next date.

Put up as fresh in the first week of May 2023.

Learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri for necessary compliance.”

5. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 13.07.2023, and following order was passed:

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.03.2023 though demarcation has been done but till date report has not been submitted.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain necessary documents and place the report on record.

3. List this case on 2nd of August, 2023 as fresh.”

6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 02.08.2023 and following order was passed:

“1. At the request made on behalf of Shri Krishna Mohan Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, put up this case as fresh on 21.8.2023.”

7. The matter was next listed on 21.08.2023 and following order was passed:

“List this case in the next week as fresh.”

8. On 26.10.2023, when the case was taken up, counsel for the Development Authority sought time to file counter affidavit, and following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the Development Authority prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit.

List this cas