Wilful Disobedience Of Court’s Directions: Delhi HC Holds DDA Vice Chairman & Officials Guilty Of Contempt In Land Allotment Case
|The Delhi High Court held the Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials being guilty of contempt in land allotment case for wilful disobedience of the Court’s directions.
The Court directed the said contemnors to personally appear before it for hearing on sentence on August 30, 2024.
A Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma said, “To sum up, once the respondent has been acquiescing in accepting the legal rights of the petitioner in having a new plot at Rohini and delivered the possession thereof, the decision taken in the meeting by the Vice Chairman, DDA on 17.10.2022 thereby, withdrawing the concession, cannot be accepted. The decision amounts to deliberate and wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court. The respondent No.2/DDA acquiesced directly with full knowledge of the entire history of the litigation and as there was an express approbation, therefore, the possession cannot be reprobated.”
The Bench held the officials guilty for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions of the High Court and ordered that they should be proceeded under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act).
Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal represented the petitioner while Standing Counsel Shobhana Takiar represented the respondents.
In this case, an application was moved in the pending contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioners in terms of Section 11 of CC Act for wilful disobedience of the directions of the High Court vide judgment dated February 4, 2019. The petitioner had instituted the petition claiming that her deceased husband was allotted a plot under the Low/Middle Income Group Scheme of DDA and the possession of the same was handed over to her husband in 1976. In this regard, a lease deed was executed, however, on account of ill-health, her husband was unable to submit the lease deed papers and had them stamped within the stipulated time. Despite making payment of the entire sale consideration, the allotment was cancelled and the application for restoration moved by the petitioner was rejected by DDA.
The petitioner’s husband challenged such decision of DDA in a writ petition which got dismissed in default for non-prosecution. In 2006, the petitioner’s husband expired and she preferred a representation for restoration of allotment of the flat. However, the same was allotted to someone else and after communication to and fro, a draw of lots was held in 2012 wherein she was allotted the premises. The physical possession of the plot was delivered to her but the same was involved in some litigation. As her request for allotting her an unencumbered land was not considered by DDA officials, she approached the High Court. The Court allowed her petition and directed DDA to allot her an unencumbered plot. But the same was not complied with and hence, the contempt petition was filed.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “… this Court finds that the officials of respondent No.2/DDA are guilty of committing civil contempt for wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by this Court. … The pleas advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that the earlier concession granted based on a statement made on its behalf on 11.07.2022, which was based on a theoretical estimate of the difference in the value and in complete ignorance of the fact as also in violation of the law, is not palatable and cannot be sustained in law.”
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
• DDA through its Vice Chairman shall execute a conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner qua the property within four weeks.
• The entire cost of the conveyance deed including the cost of stamp papers and registration charge shall be borne by DDA.
• Notice be issued to the contemnors to appear before the Court in person and show cause as to why they not be punished and sentenced in accordance with law for committing contempt of Court.
“Renotify for compliance report to be submitted by respondent No.2/DDA and for personal appearance of the Vice Chairman and Mr. Prashant Prasad, S/o Sh. B. N. Prasad, Deputy Director (Land Disposal), LAB (Resdl.), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, for hearing them on sentence on 30.08.2024”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court held the officials guilty and directed them to appear before the Court.
Cause Title- Bimla Sachdev v. Subur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5270)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal, Advocates Dileep Singh, Nikhil Beniwal, Navish Bhati, and Vikram Singh.
Respondents: Standing Counsel Shobhana Takiar