Demanding current rates contrary to judicial directions for historical rates constitutes wilful disobedience.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a writ court order dated 03.10.2024, which directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot an MIG plot at rates prevalent in 2016 and pay ₹1 lakh in costs

DDA moved a modification application, which was decided on 02.02.2026; the court upheld the application of 2016 rates but waived the ₹1 lakh cost to balance equities

Despite these clear directions, the DDA demanded payments based on 2025 rates and subsequently issued a communication on 07.01.2026 (sic) cancelling the petitioner’s allotment due to non-payment of the higher amount

The petitioner approached the court to set aside the cancellation and enforce the original directions.

Whether the DDA’s action of demanding 2025 rates and subsequently cancelling the allotment for non-payment constitutes wilful disobedience of the court orders dated 03.10.2024 and 02.02.2026

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically regarding the wilful disobedience of judicial directions

It also applied the principle of balancing equities, established in the modification order of 02.02.2026, which holds that a petitioner cannot simultaneously claim a property at historical rates and receive costs for harassment

The court found that the DDA's insistence on 2025 rates was in direct contravention of the unambiguous directions issued on 03.10.2024 and 02.02.2026, which explicitly mandated the application of 2016 rates

The court reasoned that the DDA’s conduct was "aggravated" by the fact that it proceeded to cancel the allotment on 07.01.2026 while the judicial directions were in force

The court concluded that such an administrative action to bypass a court mandate "does not withstand legal scrutiny" and constitutes prima facie wilful disobedience, as the cancellation was based on the petitioner's refusal to pay charges that the court had already ruled were inapplicable

It directed the DDA to complete the allotment process at 2016 rates within two months

The petitioner was directed to pay the requisite amount within four weeks of the DDA raising the demand

The court held that any further impediment by the DDA would be construed as wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and mandated the presence of the Director of the DDA if compliance is not reported by 15.07.2026