Facts
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 18th March 2025 in W.P.(C) 4972/2018, as modified by the Division Bench in LPA 489/2025
Source reference: p. 1-2The underlying judgments recognized the petitioner as a "Punjab migrant" entitled to a flat under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants ("HSRPM")
Source reference: p. 2-3The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed a compliance affidavit on 8th April 2026, stating they had decided to allot a Lower Income Group (LIG) flat at Narela to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 3-4The petitioner refused the allotment, contending that under Paragraph 2 of the HSRPM policy, they were entitled to an "expendable flat" rather than a standard LIG flat
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the DDA’s decision to allot an LIG flat constitutes "wilful disobedience" of the court's prior directions under the Contempt of Courts Act
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8-102. Whether the petitioner is entitled to refuse the allotment based on a specific interpretation of the HSRPM policy within the scope of contempt proceedings
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of Contempt Jurisdiction, which focus on whether there is a deliberate or wilful defiance of a court order
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants ("HSRPM") Policy, specifically Paragraph 2, which governs the eligibility and type of flats to be allotted to recognized migrants
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the DDA had taken substantive steps to comply with the previous mandates by deciding to allot a flat and filing a compliance affidavit
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8The Court noted that the DDA's counsel affirmed the LIG flat was consistent with the HSRPM policy
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9The Judge reasoned that because the DDA had offered an allotment, there was no "wilful disobedience" to warrant contempt action
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to submit the necessary documents to complete the formalities, effectively stalling the process they were seeking to enforce
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8The Court determined that a dispute regarding the category of the flat (expendable vs. LIG) is a fresh cause of action and cannot be adjudicated within the narrow scope of contempt proceedings
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12Holding
The Court held that the DDA had complied with the orders and there was no merit in the contempt petition
The petition and pending applications were disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to comply with DDA's formalities and deposit the required documents for the allotment; the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek separate legal remedies if they remained aggrieved by the specific type of flat allotted
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11, 12Original Court PDF
Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) Through Lr Smt.VeenavsN Sarvana Kumar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in