$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1904/2025 JASWANT SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Mr. Satvik Rai, Mr.

Rohit Kumar Poddar, Mr. Ayush Pandit, Mr. Vineesh Tyagi, Mr.

Krishan Arora, Advs.

versus SHRI N SARAVANA KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Mr.

Birender Singh Gurh, Mr. Aditya Verma, Advs. for DDA with Ms.

Kamleshwari, AD, DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 78636/2025 (exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 1904/2025

3. The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeks the following prayers: -

“(a) Pass an appropriate order/ direction for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for violating the orders/ directions issued by the Ld. A.D.J. in order / judgment dated

18.11.1995 passed in the appeals No.

(b) Pass an order/ direction directing respondent to appear personally and explain before this Hon'ble Court as to why they should not be punished for acting inviolation of the orders/ directions passed by Ld. ADJ n Appeals Nos. PPANo. 354/1995, Sh. Bhure vs. DDA, PPANo. 360/1995, Manohar vs. DDA, PPANo. 353/1995, Chander Pal vs. DDA, PPANo. 355/1995, Sh. Prabhati vs. DDA, PPANo. 352/1995, Hari Singh vs. DDA, PPANo. 357/1995, Hari Singh vs DDA, PPANO. 371/1995, Chaina Ram Vs. DDA.

(c) Pass such or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that proceedings under P.P. Act (The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971) were initiated against the present petitioners and they were evicted. An appeal against the same was allowed by learned ADJ vide judgment dated 18.11.1995. It is further submitted that the said judgment was never challenged and thus, has attained finality and, therefore, respondent/DDA cannot take the possession of the property.

5. The averments made on behalf of the petitioners in the present petition are as under: -

“3. That in the year 1991 the respondent DDA issued notice to the fathers/ fore fathers of the petitioners under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for initiating eviction proceeding against them for taking the possession of the land from the fathers/forefathers of the Petitioners. The estate officer of DDA passed eviction order dated 26.08.1991 against the petitioners wherein the fathers/fore fathers of the petitioners were directed to vacate the land in question.

4. That the fathers/ fore fathers of the Petitioner challenged the order dated 26.08.1991 passed by the estate officer by way of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appeals filed by the fathers/ fore fathers of the petitioners were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide orders dated 18.11.1995. The Ld.

Appellate Tribunal has set aside the eviction order dated 26.08.1991 passed by the estate officer. Ld. Appellate Tribunal has clearly held that the appellants are not encroacher upon the land in question. Ld. Appellate Tribunal has further held that lease granted to the fathers/ fore fathers of the petitioners was not for a fixed period, thus the fathers/ fore father of the petitioners cannot be said to be in unauthorized occupation of the land in question within the meaning of Section 2 (g)of the PP Act.

5. That the respondent DDA has never challenged the order dated 18.11.1995 passed by Sh. S.N. Aggarwal, A.D.J., Delhi. Thus the order dared 18.11.1995 has become final and binding on the parties. Since the respondent DDA not challenged the order dated 18.11.1995 passed by Sh. S.N. Aggarwal ADJ, Delhi in the above mentioned appeals, thus the respondent are not supposed to interfere in the possession of the petitioners.

6.