J. K. MEHRA, J ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal purported to have been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the order passed by Single Judge. The Operative part of the order reads as under: Having regard to the over all circumstances in view, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to issue the following directions:- 1. The Society is directed to carve out an additional plot measuring 400 sq. yards out of the total area of 400 sq. yards ear-marked for the construction of Community Hall and Club house in consultation with any Town Planner for allotment to the petitioner, and submit the revised lay out plan to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi within 15 days. 2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, will see to it that this direction is complied with by the Society. 3, The Municipal Corporation of Delhi will examine and consider the matter afresh immediately. If any, further information or clarification is required from the Society/respondent No. 2, that will be obtained within first 15 days and the matter will be considered as directed within one month. It will be appreciated that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi will personally look into the matter for according sanction for carving out the plot measuring 400 sq. yards after the respondent No. 2 submits the revised Lay out plan, as directed above. The above directions are not only mandatory but pre-emptory and must be punctually observed. " Before considering this matter any further, it will be relevant to notice a few facts. Diplomatic Enclave Extension cooperative House Building Society, appellant herein, was formed with the object to develop lands and allot the same to its members, so as to provide them the house, buildin Cg sites. Respondent No. 1 is a Founder Member of the Society and his seniority is at No, in the list of Members. Respondent No. l created the society, made it success and was its Secretary for four years, till December, 1960 and we are told that now he is of 84 years old. In appreciation of the services, rendered by the respondent No. 1, the General Body and the Managing Committee of the Society resolved to allot him a selected plot of his choice, on November 22, 1959. In appreciation of the services, rendered by the respondent No. 1, the General Body and the Managing Committee of the Society resolved to allot him a selected plot of his choice, on November 22, 1959. According to the Respondent No. l, he and his family members, also contributed extensive lands, i. e. about 15000 sq. yds to strengthen the case of the Society, for acquisition of further land from Delhi Administration, for developing a residential colony. ( 2 ) THOUGH, the Respondent No. 1 could demand five plots of 1200 sq. yards each, as per the policy, but he asked for one plot of 1200 sq. yds. Col. Khanna asserted in C. W. P. No. 2059 of 1985 that because of personal vendetta of some office-bearers, respondent No. l was allotted a plot, measuring only 800 sq. yards. After a thorough inquiry by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, membership of Mr. Khanna was restored and a review sought by the Society was also dismissed. ( 3 ) COL. Khanna, respondent No. l and his family and relations are stated to have owned 15000 sq. yards of land in an area where Westend Colony now exists. That land was acquired and under the policy of the Government prevailing at the relevant time, persons whose lands were acquired were entitled to have a plot of land in the colony. Mr. Khanna was enrolled as a member and was eligible for a plot of land both as a member and under the aforesaid policy. Dispute arose regarding allotment of plot to Mr. Khanna and the matter was REFERRED TO to the arbitration of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before whom a compromise was arrived at in the terms of the letter dated 9th June 1980. "the DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE EXTENSION COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. COLONY s NAME west END . WEST END RAO TULLA RAM MARG NEW DELHI-110021 Ref. No. Dated: 9th June 1980. The Arbitrator, Sh. Surinder Gandotra 115 Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1 Sub: Arbitration case No. AC/4/h/79-8 of Col. B. N. Khanna. Dear Sir, Our Society wished to make the following submissions to you in the matter of the arbitration case between Col. B. N. Khanna and the Society and others, at present pending with you. These submissions of the Society are based on a Resolution passed by the Managing committee of the Society in the meeting held on 7. Dear Sir, Our Society wished to make the following submissions to you in the matter of the arbitration case between Col. B. N. Khanna and the Society and others, at present pending with you. These submissions of the Society are based on a Resolution passed by the Managing committee of the Society in the meeting held on 7. 6. 1980. The Society has been feeling very concerned about this long standing dispute. Various efforts have been made by the society to solve the problem forming the subject of the dispute. We are most keen that a reasonable solution should be sought for finding an amicable settlement of this problem. It is in this spirit that the matter has been considered by the Society and the submissions are being made to you. "following are the submissions of the Society: (a) that taking into consideration of the fact that on a previous occasion the DDA and the Town Planner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had indicated their concurrence to the carving out of an additional plot, the same being in conformity with the permissible density and other related factors affecting this colony, the Society agrees to request the arbitrator to give an award for carving out an additional plot of 400 square yards in the West End colony. (b) that with the carving out of the said additional plot of 400 sq. yds. the Society would desire that it may be allotted to Col. B. N. Khanna or his nominee and tent the Arbitrator may be kind enough to give the award accordingly. " In taking the decision to make these submissions to you, the Society has kept in view the undertaking given by Col. B. N. Khanna that on the transmission of this compromise formula by the Society to the Arbitrator, all his disputes against the parties involved in the matter, now before the Arbitrator, will stand fully resolved. It may kindly be noted that the Society docs not assume any financial obligation in regard to the allotment of this additional plot. We earnestly hope that these requests will be acceptable to you. It may kindly be noted that the Society docs not assume any financial obligation in regard to the allotment of this additional plot. We earnestly hope that these requests will be acceptable to you. Yours faithfully, sd/- H. D. Shorie Vice-President" ( 4 ) THE said letter is signed by Shri H. D. Shorie, who was at the relevant time the Vice-President of the Society persuant to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Society and assuch the compromise was arrived at pursuant to the Executive Committee of the Society. ( 5 ) THE Arbitrator made his award whereby it was noticed that Mr. Khanna had given up plot A-27 which was much bigger in size than 400 sq. yards and it was agreed that Mr. Khanna will beprovided that plot of 400 sq. yards which was to be carved out subject to the clearances of the relevant authorities. When no such plot was carved out, Mr. Khanna filed a writ petition being C. W. P. No. 2059 of 1985. ( 6 ) IT is interesting to note that Mr. Khanna had been a member of the Society since the time the Society came into existence and he did not contest the acquisition of his land in the hope that he would be provided with an authorised residential plot of land to enable him to build his house. When the matter came tea head Mr. Khanna once again compromised with the Society with a view to put an end to the controversy and gave up his rights for a much bigger plot in the hope that he would now be allotted 400 sq. yards of land. Even that did not happen. Finally, Mr. Khanna was forced to file the Civil Writ Petition in the year 1984 i. e. after running from pillar to post for years. Now we are in 1994. The operative part of the order in the said Civil Writ Petition reads as under:- "for the reasons stated above, the Rule is made absolute and writ petition is allowed as under: The orders dated July 15, 1982, passed by then Lt. Governor, Delhi and the order dated April 16, 1985, passed by respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed. The order dated July 12, 1984, passed by respondent No. 1, is upheld. Writ of Mandamus is also issued, whereby the society, respondent no. Governor, Delhi and the order dated April 16, 1985, passed by respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed. The order dated July 12, 1984, passed by respondent No. 1, is upheld. Writ of Mandamus is also issued, whereby the society, respondent no. 2 herein, is directed to implement the award, by submitting a revised Iay out plan, thereby carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. for allotment to the petitioner, and submit the same to the concerned authority or authorities, for its or their approval. It is further directed that the revised lay-out plan, in term of the award, shall be submitted within 2 months from today, by the Society, to the concerned authorities. In case, the concerned authority is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, then, it is hoped that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take the decision, with regard to the approval, within 2 months from the date of receipt of the revised lay- out plan, from the Society, if, respondent No. 3 is the concerned authority, then, it is directed that respondent No. 3 shall take decision, with regard to the approval, within 2 months from the date of receipt of the revised plan, from the Society. By the writ of mandamus, respondent No. I, i. e. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, is directed to take steps for execution of the award dated June 30,1980. " ( 7 ) FOLLOWING this mandamus, the society approached thed. D. A. ,butas no clearance was forthcoming from D. D. A. This resulted in Mr. Khanna filing the Contempt Petition which resulted in the aforesaid impugned directions. The present appeal is filed against the said directions. ( 8 ) WE are informed that DDA has already given its "no Objection Certificate" to the appellant for carving out a plot of 400 sq. yards out of the land allotted for the Club, measuring 0. 5 acres. ( 9 ) MR. Sabharwal appearing for M. C. D. pointed out that all the open areas apart from the Club land now vests in M. C. D, and that the cooperative Society does not own any open land to carve out a plot in the colony. ( 10 ) MR. 5 acres. ( 9 ) MR. Sabharwal appearing for M. C. D. pointed out that all the open areas apart from the Club land now vests in M. C. D, and that the cooperative Society does not own any open land to carve out a plot in the colony. ( 10 ) MR. Sabharwal relies upon the sanction which was granted by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi regarding the lay- out plan of West End Colony, whereby it was stated that the lay-out plan of the West End Colony is approved subject to the society giving open areas free of charge to the Municipal Corporation. A reference to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act would show that its provisions of Sections 198 and 199 specifically deal with the manner in which the property can be acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said two sections read as under:- S. 198. Acquisition of immovable property by agreement- Whenever the Corporation decides to acquire any immovable property for the purpose of this Act, the Commissioner shall acquire such property on behalf of the corporation by agreement on such terms and at such price as may be approved by the Standing Committee. S. 199. Procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement- Whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire any immovable property under Section 198 by agreement, the Central Government may at the request of the Commissioner procure the acquisition thereof under the provisions of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), and on payment by the Corporation of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the proceedings, the land shall vest in the Corporation. " ( 11 ) THERE is no other provision in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which deals with acquisition of the property by the Corporation. Therefore, in taw, the only methods by which the Municipal Corporation can acquire land would be those which an; covered by either Section 198 or Section 199 of the said Act. ( 12 ) PRIVY Council in Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor repoted as AIR 1936 Privy Council 253, stated that "where a power is given under a Statute to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. ( 12 ) PRIVY Council in Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor repoted as AIR 1936 Privy Council 253, stated that "where a power is given under a Statute to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, (emphasis supplied ). This principle laid down by the Privy Council has been repeatedly followed and accepted by the Supreme Court not only in civil matters, but also in criminal matters: (See Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Vindh Pra: AIR 1954 SC 322 , Ballabhdas Agarwala Vs. J. C. Chakravarty, AIR 1960 SC 576 , State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh : AIR 1964 S. C. 358, Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Girdharlal Moti Lal : AIR 1969 SC 267 and Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by L. Rs. Vsa. Govind Joti Chavare: AIR 1975 SC 915 ). ( 13 ) SINCE there was no "agreement" where under any price was paid, nor was any part of vacant land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, we fail to see how Mr. Sabharwal can assert before us that, as a condition precedent to the sanction of the layout plan, the Municipal Corporation can acquire the land free of cost from any person. We need not say anything more as vesting of land in Municipal Corporation is not a question either in the Writ Petition before this Court, or in the Contempt Petition (which has its orgin in the Writ Petition ). ( 14 ) MT. Sabharwdl, however, conceded that the Corporation would be prepared to consider the alteration in the layout plan tor carving out 400 sq. yards out of the land set apart the society for the club facilities. ( 15 ) IN reply to a question from the Court, counsel for the Cooperative Society, the appellant in the present case, stated that if Mr. Khanna could not get the plot carved out, it was for him to file a separate writ potion or take such action as he may be advised for seeking appropriate relief. We fail to appreciate this argument. The Society is challenging the very order which had sought to implement the judgment in the Civil Writ Petition. How much harrassment the society wants the individual to undergo. We fail to appreciate this argument. The Society is challenging the very order which had sought to implement the judgment in the Civil Writ Petition. How much harrassment the society wants the individual to undergo. He has been living on the hope of getting a plot which has been eluding him for over three decades. It may be that carving out 400 sq. yards may result in the slight diminishing of the size of the Club house, if no other way is left open and this one is feasible, the order of the Single Judge could not be faulted with. ( 16 ) MR. Nayyar has relied upon Satyabrata Biswas and others Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others repred as JT 1994 (1) S. C. 325. A perusal of that judgment will show that it was rendered in the light of the peculiar circumstances where certain rights of sub-tenants were sought to be impugned against a party who is a total stranger to the proceedings. That situation does not prevail here. Furthermore, by the impugned order, no one has been punished, but the single Judge by his directions has given effect to the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Court passed in Civil Writ Petition which has since attained finality. ( 17 ) COUNSEL for the D. D. A. has conceded that they have no intention of withdrawing their "no Objection Certificate" to the carving Out of a plot of land of 400 sq. yards for the respondent Col. B. N. Khanna. ( 18 ) SINCE no one has been punished and no sentence has been passed in the Contempt Petition, the direction is really in the nature of execution of the judgment in the Civil Writ Petition. In this view of the matter, this appeal by the Cooperative Society would not be maintainable in the light of the law laid down in D. N. Tanja Vs. Bhajan Lal reported as 1988 (3) S. C. C. 26 and in Ravi Saraswat Vs. Ram Chandra Maheshwari and another reportd as 1987 AWC 1284 = 1986 All Cri. C. 409. ( 19 ) IN any event, we find the single Judge s order to be manifestly just and fair to all concerned. We do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with costs.