TILAK RAM Vs. Z U SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Contempt Petition it has been alleged that the Orders of the Division Bench dated July 15, 2002 have not been complied with by the Respondents. The relevant paragraph of the said Order in Civil Writ No.1750/1996, whereby the Petition was allowed with costs of Rs.5,000.00 payable by the Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, New Delhi, reads thus:

(2.) It is contended by Mr.Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that since the Bench had employed the words "on same terms", it was implicit that while allotting the plot to the Petitioner, the DDA could not claim payment at the current rates. In the present case, the Petitioner's land was acquired in 1969. By letter dated 1.6.1982, the Petitioner was informed that since his application for allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of the acquired land had not been received within time, the recommendation made in his favour for allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq.yards on 21st February, 1980 stood withdrawn. It was this action which was successfully challenged before the Division Bench in Civil Writ No.1750/1996.

(3.) Mr.Sethi has drawn attention to Rule 6 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 which stipulates, inter alia, that subject to other provisions of the Rules, the Authority shall allot Nazul land at the pre-determined rates to individuals whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi after 1st day of January, 1961, and which forms part of Nazul land. Rule 2 (l) defines "Pre-determined rates" to mean the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of persons and determined by notification from time to time by the Central Government, having regard to-