SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

CM APPL. 42650/2018

1. The instant application has been filed for recalling the order dated 16.03.2018 by which the contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017 was withdrawn.

2. The petitioner had filed CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017 alleging that the respondents are not implementing the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5198/2016.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-

i. The petitioner's land had been acquired by the Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration in the year 1968. At the relevant time, apart from the compensation that has to be paid, persons whose lands were acquired were to be allotted residential plot/commercial space/shop, or compassionate employment to one of their family members for rehabilitating the family who lost their lands.

ii. It is stated that the petitioner's grandfather, whose land had been acquired had applied for allotment of an alternate plot. The petitioner, who succeeded his grandfather, started pursuing the allotment to be made to him in terms of the rehabilitation policy. However, as the petitioner's request was not included in the seniority list of allotment, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 2019/2013. On being informed that his name was being included, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

iii. It is stated that after the Petitioner’s name was included in the seniority list, his name was thereafter rejected on the ground that the recorded owner, i.e. the petitioner's grandfather, had not applied for an alternate plot in his lifetime. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 2695/2014 challenging the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Land & Building Department by which the petitioner's case for alternate allotment was rejected. This Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and directed the Land & Building Department to reconsider the representation of the petitioner.

iv. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Land & Building Department vide communication dated 06.04.2016 made a recommendation to the DDA regarding allotment of a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds. to the petitioner.

v. Since nothing was being done for the allotment of plot, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 5198/2016. On 30.05.2016, W.P.(C)5198/2016 was disposed of by this Court directing the DDA to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation with the DDA and prayed for allotment of a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds at Sector 23, Pocket 4 & 7, Dwarka, Delhi. However, as the representation was not considered within the stipulated time limit, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by way of the instant contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 205/2017.

vi. Notice in the contempt petition was issued on 12.05.2017. The order sheet reveals that when Draw of Lots was being held for allotment of plots at Dwarka, the petitioner filed CM. APPLN.19528/2017 seeking the following prayer:-

“To reserve the plot no. 31, Block-C, Pkt-8, Sector-17, Dwarka, New Delhi having area of 207 sq. mt in favour of the petitioner till the disposal of the present writ petition;”

vii. On 23.05.2017, learned counsel for the DDA assured the Court that the position of the vacant plots at Dwarka would be disclosed, and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the Draw of Lots will be held and the petitioner will be deprived of a plot was uncalled for.

viii. On 17.08.2017, this Court was informed that there were 104 plots admeasuring 250 sq. yds. but no time had been fixed for the Draw of Lots. It was stated that the seniority list was yet to be finalised.

ix. During the course of the hearing, this Court was informed that the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 of the seniority list for the allotment of plot and this Court vide order dated 17.08.2017 observed that the petitioner, who is the third generation fighting for the allotment of plot, should be given a plot by a Mini Draw of Lots, if required.

x. On 11.12.2017, learned counsel for the DDA handed over a copy of the communication dated 08.12.2017 vide Diary No. F.27(29)2005/LAB(R)/2234 stating that the direction given by this Court had been complied with as Plot No. 188, Pocket 4 & 6, Sector-26, Dwarka admeasuring 250 sq. yds. had been allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.12.2017.

xi. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application being CM. APPLN. 10344/2018 for withdrawal of the contempt petition. After withdrawal of the contempt petition on 16.03.2018, the petitioner was informed by the DDA that the allotment made by the DDA in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled vide letter dated 21.08.2018 passed by the DDA.

xii. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the allotment was withdrawn because of the fact that the acquisition by which the said plot had been acquired had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The New Land Acquisition Act’) which was interpreted in terms of judgment passed in Jayawanti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2579/2017.

xiii. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application for recalling the order dated 16.03.2018 and for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.

4. Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the DDA has scant regard for the majesty of law. He states that in order to avoid initiation of contempt proceedings and looking at the orders which have been passed by this Court in the instant contempt petition, DDA allotted Plot No. 188, Pocket 4 & 6, Sector-26, Dwarka admeasuring 250 sq. yds. to the petitioner. Mr. Bansal has taken this Court through various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court had directed the DDA to reserve one plot in Dwarka for the petitioner. He states that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the officials of the DDA.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to allotment of plot, the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition. He states that even before the ink on the order was dry, the allotment made to the petitioner was withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the DDA, which demonstrates the scant regard which the DDA possesses for the orders of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reason given in order dated 21.08.2018 cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner is that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act in terms of order passed in Jayawanti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2579/2017. He has taken this Court through an order dated 31.07.2019 wherein this Court had dismissed W.P.(C) 2579/2017 for non-prosecution and that too after the contempt was withdrawn. He states that the allotment granted to the petitioner which was in compliance of the order passed by this Court cannot be permitted to be withdrawn and the order withdrawing the allotment is contemptuous and based on wrong facts. He further submits that after making the petitioner withdraw the instant contempt petition, DDA could not have cancelled the allotment without approaching this Court and, therefore, the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the DDA is nothing but contempt of the order passed by this Court.

7. Per contra, Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the DDA, contends that there was no order passed by this Court at any point of time directing that the petitioner should be allotted a plot only in Dwarka. He states that when the order dated 17.08.2017 was passed directing the respondents to hold Mini Draw of Lots for the plots lying vacant at Dwarka, it was ot brought to the knowledge of the Court that a policy decision had been taken by the DDA that allotment of plots as a part of the rehabilitation scheme would be done in Narela and not at Dwarka. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted an alternate plot at Narela. He states that the petitioner was entitled to one plot and that was allotted to him at Narela and the earlier allotment which was made to the petitioner in Dwarka was contrary to the policy decision taken by the DDA, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated orders of the Court.

8. Mr. Birbal submits that in the year 2005, a policy decision was taken by the DDA that all plots in Dwarka would be sold by public auction or will be used for the development of the area and this decision was reiterated in the year 2015. Accordingly, the DDA had cancelled the allotment of all plots in Dwarka and allotted alternate plots in Narela to all the allottees stating that the public notice had been issued for this purpose. He states that the policy decision taken by the DDA has been upheld by this Court in a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4902/2018 titled as Ram Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8312, wherein this Court has held that this policy decision has been taken in public interest and in accordance with law.

9. Mr. Birbal states that no fault cannot be found with the DDA in cancelling the allotment of plot to the petitioner in Dwarka and instead allotting him a plot in Narela. He states that the allotment made to the petitioner in Dwarka was completely contrary to the policy decision taken by the DDA, and the DDA was justified in correcting its error and withdrawing the plot allotted to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner cannot demand the allotment of a plot at a particular place. He states that the plots in Dwarka fetch a much higher price and, therefore, a policy decision was taken by the DDA since the allotments which were being made under the rehabilitation policy which being given way below the market price.

10. Mr. Birbal further contends that when the writ petition being W.P.(C) 2579/2017 Jayawanti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., was being considered by this Court, the judgment of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 [LQ/SC/2014/83] held the field and it was apparent that the writ petition would be allowed. It was in these circumstances that it was communicated in the letter dated 21.08.2018 that the acquisition had lapsed. However, the position has changed and the judgment of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (2020) 8 SCC 129 [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] ">(2020) 8 SCC 129 [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] ">(2020) 8 SCC 129 [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] ">(2020) 8 SCC 129 [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] . He states that it could not have been seen at that time that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) would be overruled by the Constitution Bench, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was mislead. He, therefore, states that the contempt petition is not maintainable.

11. In rejoinder, Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contentions raised by the DDA at this juncture are not sustainable. He states that it could not be said with certainty that W.P.(C) 2579/2017 would be allowed, and, therefore the reason given by the DDA for cancelling Plot No.188, Pocket 4 & 6, Sector 26 in letter dated 25.10.2017 was a false statement. He draws the attention of this Court to an additional affidavit dated 22.11.2019 wherein the DDA states that a Division Bench of this Court in Jayawanti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2579/2017 had quashed the acquisition of land under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act, which is completely contrary to the facts and the DDA has made a false statement on oath and, therefore, proceedings for perjury must be initiated against the officials of the DDA. He states that the petitioner was rightfully allotted a plot in Dwarka which is of a much higher value and the petitioner's plot cannot be withdrawn without giving any reason or even without giving a hearing for re-allotment of plot in Narela. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India , (2012) 1 SCC 273 [LQ/SC/2011/1377] .

12. Heard Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the DDA, and perused the material on record.

13. The short question arises for consideration in this case is whether there is a wilful disobedience on the part of the DDA in complying with the orders of this Court.

14. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the petitioner's grandfather was the recorded owner of the property and his properties were acquired in the year 1968. Under the rehabilitation policy, the petitioner's grandfather was entitled to re-allotment of a plot or commercial space/shop or employment to any of his family members. Consequently, petitioner herein started pursuing for an alternate plot. A seniority list was prepared in September 2011 for recommendation of an alternate plot wherein the petitioner's name was missing for which the petitioner had to file W.P.(C) 2019/2013. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was included in the seniority list and the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition. The petitioner was then informed that his case was rejected on the ground that his grandfather had not applied for an alternate plot and this resulted in the petitioner filing W.P.(C) 2965/2014. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 directed the DDA to consider the petitioner's representation afresh.

15. Averments and the material on record show that though the petitioner's name has been recommended for allotment of plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds, but nothing had been done. The petitioner filed a third writ petition being W.P.(C) 5198/2016 for a direction to the DDA to allot him a plot and this petition was disposed of on 30.05.2016 with a direction to the DDA to treat the writ petition of the petitioner as a representation, and the same was to be considered and decided within a period of six weeks. As the petitioner's name was absent from the list, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner.

16. Perusal of the material on record shows that there is no order by this Court directing that the petitioner is entitled to a plot in Dwarka. The petitioner moved an application in the contempt petition for allotment of plot in Dwarka because DDA had initiated procedure for allotment of plots in Dwarka. This Court, thereafter, on 17.08.2017, in that context, had passed a direction to the Respondent that the case of the petitioner be considered expeditiously, and accordingly, statements were made by the DDA that the petitioner would be given a plot in Dwarka. A perusal of the order sheets does not indicate any specific direction by this Court for allotment of a plot in Dwarka. The petitioner was allotted a plot in Dwarka vide letter dated 08.12.2017 because of which the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition on 16.03.2018.

17. The material on record indicates that the letter dated 08.12.2017 was in compliance of the order dated 17.08.2017 by which this Court had noted that as the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 of the seniority list for allotment of the plot, the case of the petitioner should be considered expeditiously and would be acquired by a Mini Draw of Lots, if required. The DDA instead of holding the Mini Draw of Lots, allotted a plot to the petitioner in Dwarka.

18. The petitioner withdrew the contempt petition. After the contempt petition was withdrawn, the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled. Accordingly, what remains for this Court to consider is whether the plot which had been allotted in Dwarka could be withdrawn by the DDA and whether such withdrawal amounts to wilful disobedience and the orders of the Court and more particularly keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has been allotted a plot at Narela in accordance with the policy of DDA.

19. The concept of civil contempt has been deliberated by this Court time and again. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, [LQ/SC/2003/886] the Supreme Court has observed as under:

“17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines “civil contempt” and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. “Wilful” means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case..."

(emphasis supplied)

20. The Supreme Court had noted that the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge of civil contempt in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405 [LQ/SC/2002/343] . The Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a “civil contempt” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 — the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation — the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise.”

21. In order to make out civil contempt under Section 2(B) of the 1971 Act, scant regard must be shown towards the order of the Court and wilful disobedience must be established. If such wilful disobedience is made out, it is the duty of the Court to take cognizance of the same as contempt. The conduct of the Contemnor must be of such nature which undermines the dignity of the Court and outrages the majesty of law.

22. Material on record discloses that the DDA had taken a policy decision that alternate plots under the rehabilitation policy would not be given in those areas which have been declared as developed areas and that allotments could only be made in upcoming projects. The DDA brought out Circular dated 24.11.2005 regarding allotment of alternative plots against land acquired wherein it is stated that such plots had to be allotted in upcoming projects in developing areas and not in developed areas. It is stated that Dwarka is no longer an upcoming project and has become a developed area in which the land value is very high and, therefore, plots could not be allotted there. The relevant portion of the circular dated 24.11.2005 has been reproduced in W.P.(C) 4902/2018 titled as Ram Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8312 which states that "since the above areas have been declared as developed areas, no alternative plots may be allotted in these areas and allotment may be made in only upcoming projects".

23. A meeting of the Screening Committee was conducted wherein it was discussed that allotment of plots in developed areas like Dwarka to persons who were to be rehabilitated under the rehabilitation policy and who had to be given plots at pre-determined rates would result in huge loss to the DDA to the tune of Rs.711.38 crores and that the DDA can ill-afford to sustain such a loss as auction is the main source of the DDA from which it meets its expenses.

24. The facts in Ram Kumar (supra) are more or less similar. In that case, allotments accorded to the Petitioner in Dwarka had been cancelled and the Petitioners were allotted plots in a developing area under the said policy. This Court in the Ram Kumar (supra), after considering all the aspects, upheld the policy decision of the DDA and observed that a person whose land was/is acquired does not have a right to an alternate plot. The consideration of an alternative plot is subject to availability of suitable alternate plot and no person has a right to claim for an alternate plot in any particular area or zone, and that in deciding the said aspect, the policy enforced on the date of allotment of plot would apply. The policy decision was taken in the year 2005 and, therefore, the communication dated 08.12.2017 of the DDA by which the Plot No. 188, Pocket 4 & 6, Sector-26, Dwarka admeasuring 250 sq. yds. was allotted to the petitioner was in contravention to the policy decision. In view of this, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of such communication is a wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.

25. No doubt, in the letter dated 21.08.2018, it is stated that Plot No.188, Pocket 4 & 6, Sector 26 was being withdrawn because the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act. In Jayawanti & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2579/2017, the same had been sought to be explained it was not factually correct, but it had been upheld by the judgment of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which was holding the field at the relevant time. However, DDA could not have foreseen the change in law that occurred due to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra). Therefore, it cannot be said that the stand taken by the DDA in the additional Status Report is fallacious.

26. In light of the above observations, the application for recalling the said order is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.