The court affirmed that failure to comply with its prior order regarding land acquisition constitutes willful disobedience, mandating the issuance of a No Objection Certificate.

J U D G M E N T

1. M/s. Kamdhenu Enterprises through its Authorized Representative, Mr. Narendar Kumar Jain ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘ petitioner company ’ ) is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent No.1 i.e. State of NCT 1 of Delhi as well as the respondent No.2 Mr. Babu Lal Meena, the erstwhile Additional District Magistrate, New Delhi for alleged wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 16.01.2019 in W.P.(C) 259/2015 titled as „Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi‟ under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. In order to understand the background that gives rise to the present contempt petition, it would be expedient to briefly refer to the history of the present litigation. The petitioner company claims to be the owner and in possession of the land falling in Khasra No. 1162

(1-0), 1163(4-8), 1165/1(1-0), 1165/2(0-4), 1165/3(3-12), and 1170

(0-4) falling in revenue village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil: Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, admeasuring 2.1666 Acres i.e. 10 Bighas and 8 Biswas ( hereinafter referred as the ‘ subject land ’ ). Admittedly, Notification No. F.9(12)/95/L&B/LA/9743 dated 27.06.1996 under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act 2 was issued by the GNCTD 3 thereby seeking the acquisition of land measuring 1337 bighas 04 biswas , which included the subject land of the petitioner company for the purpose of developing Vasant Kunj, Phase-IV under the planned development of Delhi, invoking the urgency provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the 1894 Act.

3. It is also a matter of record that a declaration was issued on 10.01.1997 which was challenged by a batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) No. 1953/1997 and an Award came to be passed bearing No. 02/1998-99 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on 06.01.1999. However, the Award was rendered to be ineffective and non est by virtue of a decision by this Court dated 03.03.2005 4 and 28.04.2006 5 whereby the declaration issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act dated 10.01.1997 and all consequent proceedings stood quashed.

4. At this juncture it may be noted that it is the case of the petitioner company that in terms of the directions passed by this Court dated 14.02.2005, M/s Daffodil Estate Private Limited got amalgamated with the petitioner company whereby all rights, title and interests in the subject land stood transferred to the petitioner company and the name of the petitioner company stood mutated in the revenue records on 29.09.2012.

5. Referring to the W.P.(C) No. 1953/1997, Notification under Section 4(1) dated 27.06.1996 was struck down to the extent that it invoked Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act whereby the award denied the land owners their right to file objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, leaving it open to the respondent no.1 to invite fresh objections under Section 5 of the 1894 Act vide order dated 03.03.2005. It is pertinent to indicate that the two learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ differed in their opinion with regard to the application of Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act and reference was made to the third Judge for adjudication, which was decided vide order dated 28.04.2006 holding that the invocation of Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act was unlawful since it was a mechanical exercise of powers without assigning any reasons and that the land owners had the legal right to file objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. It is a matter of record that the respondent no.1 issued a public notice inviting objections from the interested persons on 21.11.2012, pursuant to which the petitioner company also submitted its objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act on 21.12.2012 within the stipulated time. It is pertinent to mention that evidently, the objections are yet to see the light of the day.

6. There was a new twist in the story when the 1894 Act was repealed and the legis