Disposed¶45

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt.Veena v. N Sarvana Kumar

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026CONT.CAS(C)/145/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court contempt — CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026 — wilful disobedience of judgment dated 18.03.2025 in W.P.(C) 4972/2018 — DDA compliance — Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (HSRPM) — Punjab migrant flat allotment — LIG flat at Narela — expendable flat eligibility — Compliance Affidavit dated 08.04.2026 — LPA 489/2025 — petitioner directed to deposit requisite documents — liberty to seek remedies — Mini Pushkarna, J — disposed of 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; petition disposed of with directions to comply with the DDA's allotment formalities and liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law. ¶45

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt.Veena Vs N… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the petitioner; petition disposed of with directions to comply with the DDA's allotment formalities and liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the DDA has complied with the orders passed by this Court (judgment dated 18th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 4972/2018, as dealt with in LPA 489/2025), i.e., whether there was wilful disobedience warranting contempt action. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The DDA has complied with the orders passed by this Court.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's submission that she is eligible for an expendable flat under the HSRPM policy and does not accept the flat allotted by DDA is without any merit.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to comply with the directions issued by the DDA and deposit the requisite documents for completion of formalities for allotment of the flat to her.ratio¶43
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the DDA's decision on allotment as not being in terms of the HSRPM policy, she is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026) alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 18th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 4972/2018, whereby the petitioner was recognised as a Punjab migrant entitled to allotment of a flat under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (HSRPM), as dealt with in LPA 489/2025 (disposed of 31st July, 2025). DDA's Compliance Affidavit dated 08th April, 2026 recorded that an LIG flat at Narela had been decided to be allotted. Rejecting the petitioner's claim to an 'expendable' flat and her refusal of the allotted flat, the Court held that the DDA had complied with the Court's orders, noted DDA's stand that the flat offered is as per the HSRPM policy, directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite documents for allotment, and left her free to challenge the allotment in accordance with law. Petition, along with pending application, disposed of. (Mini Pushkarna, J.)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13^th July, 2026

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026 & CM APPL. 24097/2026 BALDEV RAJ ( SINCE DECEASED ) THROUGH LR SMT.VEENA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ujala Vishnoi and Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

N SARVANA KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Soni and Mr. Vishal Vaid, Advs. for DDA Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA Ms. Avni Singh, PC with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. for GNCTD

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶8

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 18^th March, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 4972/2018 . The relevant portions of the said judgment, are reproduced as under:

¶9

“xxx xxx xxx

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026

¶14

xxx xxx xxx”

¶15

The aforesaid judgment was subsequently challenged by way of the appeal being LPA 489/2025 before the Division Bench, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 31^st July, 2025, in the following manner:

¶16

“xxx xxx xxx

¶17

xxx xxx xxx”

¶18

Perusal of the aforesaid orders dated 18^th March, 2025 and 31^st July, 2025 clearly bring forth that the petitioner herein was recognized as a Punjab migrant at the relevant point of time and the petitioner was considered entitled for allotment of a flat in terms of the policy of Housing

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026

¶23

Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (“HSRPM”).

¶24

This Court notes that a Compliance Affidavit dated 08^th April, 2026 has been filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”), wherein, it is indicated as follows:

¶25

“xxx xxx xxx

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026

¶30

xxx xxx xxx”

¶31

It is to be noted that as per the aforesaid compliance affidavit, Lower Income Group (“LIG”) flat at Narela has been decided to be allotted to the petitioner.

¶32

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only an LIG flat is sought to be allotted to the petitioner. As per the case put forth by the petitioner, under the policy of HSRPM, the petitioner is eligible for allotment of an expendable flat. In this regard, she relies upon paragraph 2 of the policy of HSRPM, which reads as under:

¶33

“xxx xxx xxx

¶34

xxx xxx xxx”

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner does not accept the flat allotted by DDA.

¶40

This Court is of the view that the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner is without any merit. The DDA has already taken a decision to allot a flat to the petitioner herein. Rather, the petitioner has not complied with the directions of the DDA, and has not submitted the requisite documents for completion of formalities for allotment of flat.

¶41

This Court also takes note of the submission made by Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate who appears on behalf of the DDA, that the flat in question, which is sought to be allotted to the petitioner, is as per the policy of HSRPM.

¶42

Accordingly, as per the facts on record, it is seen that the DDA has complied with the orders passed by this Court.

¶43

The petitioner is directed to comply with the directions issued by the DDA and deposit the requisite documents for the purpose of allotment of flat to her.

¶44

However, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the DDA for allotment of the flat in question to her and considers the said allotment to be not in terms of the policy of HSRPM, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.

¶45

Noting the aforesaid, the present petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶46

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶47

JULY 13, 2026/KR

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

CONT.CAS(C) 145/2026

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt.Veena v. N Sarvana Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt.Veena v. N Sarvana Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

Mithlesh Solanki Vs MCD & Ors.

Mohd. Shafir Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Deepali

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.

Darshna Malik & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

Manoj Kumar Vs Govind Mohan & Anr.

N.C. Bakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nikhat Parveen@Khusboo Khatoon Vs Rafique@Sillu