Contempt petition alleging DDA demolished the petitioner's back wall in disobedience of a 2009 writ judgment confining land acquisition to the road area in Sector 16, Rohini. The court dismissed the delay condonation application and held the demolition location was a disputed question of fact for the civil suit already pending.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~29
SMT. BALWANT KAUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. (through VC).
versus
MANISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Adv. for DDA (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
“A. Initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent no.1, respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 for their willful disobedience.
and
B. Issue appropriate directions for the compliance of the judgment dated 29.05.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the connected Writ Petition (civil) No. 16845/2006 in the case title Pritpal Singh and ors. versus Union of Indian;
And C. Pass any other Order(s)/ Direction(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
directions: -
“36. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following reliefs to the petitioners:
(a) The land to be acquired, under the impugned notification shall be confined to that portion which is required for construction of the road in Sector 16, Rohini, alone. This shall be restricted to the area shown in blue in the Annexure to the letter dated 4th April, 2006 sent by Mr. Pritam Singh, Deputy Director (NL-1), DDA to the Deputy Secretary (LA), Land & Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. With regard to the remaining portions of the land, the said notifications are quashed.
(b) The petitioners shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 11,000/-.”
“6. It is most humbly stated that the Hon’ble High Court in its final judgment and order dated 25.02.2009 had partially allowed the Writ Petition by restricting the impugned notifications to acquire only those portions which was required Ibr construction of the road in Sector 16, Rohini the required and undertake the required development.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
land required, as mandated by the judgment and final order of the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the Possession Proceedings alongwith its Translated copy are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1.
11 Thus, it is evident from the aforementioned facts that the Respondent/DDA has not shown any disregard to the orders of this Hon’ble Court. In its capacity, there is no act on the part of DDA which shows wilful or deliberate contempt or violation of the judgement dated 29.05.2009. Furthermore, DDA stands bound by the orders of this Hon’ble Court and shall continue to abide by all the orders of this Hon’ble Court.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
Sessions Judge seeking permanent, mandatory injunction and declaration against the respondent/DDA in respect of property measuring 8 biswas in Khasra No. 55/2 situated in Village Samaypur, Delhi, against the arbitrary action of the defendant/DDA.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
which were part of different valid award and the same was not part of the land involved in W.P.(C) 16845 of 2006.
“(a) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants interalia directing them not to undertake the demolition work in the suit property of the plaintiff and rebuilt the same at the earliest ;
(b) Direct the defendant to· restore the property of the plaintiff in its original condition of pre- demolition
In alternatively, a compensation for a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant.
(c) Declare the act of the defendant is illegal and without any basis and declare the suit property has already been released from the alleged acquisition proceedings, the plaintiff is lawful owner of the suit property;
(d) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff;
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
on account of pandemic situation due to the spread of novel corona virus in the country.
AMIT SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 3, 2025 /nk/kr/ns
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2025 at 12:07:25
2 issues framed by the court
Should the 639-day delay in filing the contempt petition be condoned?
Did the respondents wilfully disobey the Division Bench judgment dated 29.05.2009 by demolishing the petitioner's property?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of LimitationRelied on¶10
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Balwant Kaur
Manish Kumar Gupta
Others (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, including DDA)
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
