(1.) Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the contempt petition is taken up for final hearing.
(2.) This contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC seeks initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondent, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Tower Hall, Delhi for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 20th October, 2003.
(3.) After considering the merits of the matter in respect of providing an alternate plot to the petitioner the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20th October, 2003 held as follows:-:- The question, however, remains as to who has to pay for it. The petitioner certainly does not have to. The MCD and the DDA are two public bodies who must settle their internal claims between themselves. Both the authorities are responsible to the petitioner for providing alternative plot in terms of the policy decision dated 16.2.1977. In case the two public bodies are not able to agree to a methodology, it is always open to them to refer the matter to the Committee of Secretaries for the Delhi State set up in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court of India. In the alternative, they can file appropriate legal proceedings for settlement of their inter-se dispute but the same cannot deprive the petitioner of either the allotment or enjoyment of the plot in question. Thus, the respondents MCD and DDA are left to their remedies as mentioned aforesaid for settlement of their disputes. 20. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 DDA to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the plot measuring 200 sq. yds., at site No.18 bearing No.D-1/136A, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to the petitioner and to execute the deeds of title in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner executing necessary documents. The needful be done within a maximum period of two months from today.