* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 08 January 2025 Judgment pronounced on : 15 January 2025 + CONT.CAS(C) 1147/2023 RIZWAN AHMED & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Mr.

Ashish Kumar, Mr. Viklap Chandela and Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Advs.

versus SUBHASISH PANDA & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, SC with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Barun Dev and Mr. Vansh Kalra, Advs. for DDA Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel-GNCTD with Ms. Purnima Jain, Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Advs. for R-5/SHO CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents/Delhi Development Authority, [DDA], Horticulture Division, arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 4, besides respondent No.5/SHO (Jamia Nagar), near Okhla Head, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for the alleged wilful disobedience of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMCOODNT.CAS(C) 1147/2023 Page 1 of 8 directions of this Court dated 15.11.2018, passed in W.P.(C) No.

11355/2017.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner No.1 is that he is the owner of land measuring 4 bigha 07 biswas, whereas petitioner No.2 is the owner of land measuring 2 bighas 19 biswas forming part of Khasra No. 249 situated in village Jogabai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is stated that they had constructed residential houses on the aforesaid land and have been in occupation of the same for the last three decades.

3. The petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for declaration of the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed qua the subject property in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is stated that the said writ petition was decided vide order dated 15.11.2018, whereby it was declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the aforementioned land besides land falling in Khasra No. 225 measuring 2 bigas 02 biswas has been deemed to have lapsed.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that a demolition drive was carried out by the respondents on 08.08.2023 in an unlawful manner and built up structures on the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioners were bulldozed, which is alleged to have been done ostensibly while carrying out the demolition drive in respect of properties located in Khasra No. 235. Reliance in this regard has been placed on documents, viz., electricity bills, photographs of the built-up Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMCOODNT.CAS(C) 1147/2023 Page 2 of 8 and demolished structures which form part of Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-5 respectively.

5. Upon notice being issued to the respondents in the present proceedings, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 supported by an affidavit of Pankaj Gunawat, Deputy Director (Horticulture) dated 22.04.2024, wherein it is inter-alia brought out that the land falling in Khasra No. 249 measuring 11 bigas and 16 biswas was acquired vide award No. 19/92-93 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the physical possession of Khasra No. 249 measuring 5 bigas 4 biswas was handed over to the DDA by the LAC, [Land Acquisition Collector] /L&B, [Land & Building] on 13.06.2013, and the same was thereafter transferred to the Horticulture Division-VII of the DDA on 13.02.2017. It is specifically pleaded that the possession of remaining 6 bigas 12 biswas falling in Khasra No. 249 had not been handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B.

6. Relying on the copy of possession proceedings dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure R-1), it is stated that the land in question is falling in the Yamuna Flood Plains and an unauthorized encroachment had been removed including unauthorised constructions being demolished at the site, pursuant to Public Notice dated 02.08.