D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) BY a separate judgment delivered today in L. P. A. No. 91/86 and L. P. A. 33/87 we have allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to Delhi Development Authority for further consideration. Residents association has complained that the Samiti and its office bearers Lave committed breach of court s orders and are in contempt. ( 2 ) AS to how the contempt is alleged to have been committed it may be necessary to refer to facts of the case in brief. The Samiti filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to have the letters dated 26 July 1985 and 13 January 1986 of the D. D. A. quashed. The Samiti sought a further direction that D. D. A. be restrained from taking any action contrary in the matter of allotment of 4. 03 acres of land to the school and also sought writ of mandamus directing the D. D. A. to sanction the building plans submitted by the Samiti in December 1984 (1985 ). ( 3 ) THE land was allotted to the Samiti in three lots. It is the third allotment of 2. 69 acres which is in dispute. By letter dated 25 July 1985 the D. D. A- informed the Samiti that on the plot of land of 2. 69 acres allotted and handed over to it on 15 July 1985 partly for institutional building/party for play ground, no temporary or permanent structure including compound wall/fencing should be raised till the matter regarding allotment of land was reviewed by the Vice Chairman of the D. D. A. By letter dated 13 January 1986 the allotment of the land measuring 2. 69 acres to the Samiti was cancelled and it was requested to hand over the physical possession of the same to the Assistant Engineer (Institution), D. D. A. on 20 January 1986. Building plans submitted by the Samiti were, therefore, rejected as the allotment of the land in favour of the Samiti was 4. 03 acres minus 2. 69 acres. 69 acres to the Samiti was cancelled and it was requested to hand over the physical possession of the same to the Assistant Engineer (Institution), D. D. A. on 20 January 1986. Building plans submitted by the Samiti were, therefore, rejected as the allotment of the land in favour of the Samiti was 4. 03 acres minus 2. 69 acres. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the Samiti, set aside letters dated 26 July 1985 and 13 January 1986 and held that the Samiti was entitled to a direction that the application for sanction of building plans of the Samiti had to be considered on the basis that it related to an area of 4. 03 acres, and that the rejection of the plans on the ground that the area was sub-standard was quashed. Against this order, both the D. D. A. as well as the Residents Association filed two separate Letters Patent Appeals. When the appeal by the Residents Association came up for admission along with an application for stay of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Bench hearing the appeals passed the following three orders on 9 December 1986, 7 September 1987 and 16 December 1987 LPA 91/86: 9. 12. 1986 Present: Mr. R. K. Makhija with Mr. Jagjit Singh for the appellant. Ms. Vasudha Rohatgi for the respondent. C. M. No. 1494/86: The appeal is fixed for admission on 11. 12. 1986. The immediate complaint of the Appellant is that under the orders of the learned Single Judge the Respondents are constructing the boundary wall and this would interfere with the rights of the residents to enjoy the plot of land as a play-field. Ms. Rohtagi appears for the School and contends that the boundary wall has already been constructed. She states that a Commissioner may be appointed to visit the spot and make a report. He shall be paid a fee of Rs. 700. 00 by respondents. Meanwhile, we direct that the parties shall maintain status-quo. The respondents shall not make any further construction. The Commissioner shall submit his report by 11. 12. 1986. Dasti. 7. 9. 87 Present : Mr. K. K. Lahiri with Mr. Jagjit Singh for the appellants. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi for respondent No l. Mr. Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ashoka Jain counsel for respondent No. 2. LPA No. 91/86: Admitted. The respondents shall not make any further construction. The Commissioner shall submit his report by 11. 12. 1986. Dasti. 7. 9. 87 Present : Mr. K. K. Lahiri with Mr. Jagjit Singh for the appellants. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi for respondent No l. Mr. Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ashoka Jain counsel for respondent No. 2. LPA No. 91/86: Admitted. C. M. No. 1494/86: Let the reply to the C. M. on behalf of me respondents be filed within ten days. C. M. is adjourned to 22nd September 1987. The ad interim order dated 9th December, 1986 to continue till further orders. L. P. A. 33/87: 16. 12. 87 Present: Mr. Keshav Dayal,sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Shah counsel for the appellant. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for respondents 4 and 5. C. M, 121/87: The peration of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9th October, 1986 is stayed. However, it is made clear that status quo as of today would be observed. The parties will have liberty to apply. " ( 5 ) WHEN the appeal came up for admission, a Local Commissioner was appointed as mentioned in the order dated 9 December 1986. His report is dated 11 December 1986. He found mat me big "playground" was enclosed from all sides by a boundary wall and me only entrance to the playground was from the school. The Local Commissioner also filed a rough sketch of the site. On 26 September 1989 we allowed the appellants to hold Ram Lila on the land. This was in terms of earlier orders made by this Court. However, we noted that Mr. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the Samiti, handed over to us two copies of (he plan where the open area was marked "b", and he said that instead of breaking the walls as per earlier order dated 12 October 1988, the wall could be broken at place marked "x" in the plan opposite to which there was a public street. Mr. Lahiri appearing for the Residents Association said that the correctness of that plan should not be made a matter of record and that only for the purpose of the order it could be taken on record. Mr. Lahiri appearing for the Residents Association said that the correctness of that plan should not be made a matter of record and that only for the purpose of the order it could be taken on record. Now, if we see this plan the open area is shown as marked "b" and part of the ground is shaded with pencil and on this it is written "proposed building". ( 6 ) THE Residents Association filed an application on 18 October 1989 under the Contempt of Courts Act complaining breach of court s orders and praying that the Samiti be punished for committing contempt of the court and also sought direction that it should forthwith cease construction work on the playfield/suit plot and demolish all construction work carried thereon. The construction work was on part of the land measruing 2. 69 acres. The Residents Association also filed the plan where construction was being carried on as well as the photographs showing the construction being made, and also the building material stacked on the land. On notice being issued, reply to this was filed by Mr. Srinivas Sharma, Secretary of the Samiti. He said the application was belated and was wholly malafide. He said earlier the school was allotted 1. 43 acres of land in the first instance and thereafter 2. 60 acres was allotted on 25 June 1985, the total area, therefore, being 4. 03 acres. He said in the letter of allotment it was stated that 2 acres of the land was meant for school building and 2. 03 acres for play ground. He said the area allotted for play ground was to be kept open and on that no structure of even temporary nature was to be raised. This he said was pointed out in the letter dated 25 June 1985 from the D. D. A. to the Samiti. He said no portion of any construction was made on the land measuring 2. 03 acres. He admitted that construction was started even prior to the sanction of the plans which sanction was given on 15 February 1989. He said under the sanction order the building was to be completed by 15 February 1991. He further said that a penalty of Rs. 85,023. 00 was levied on the Samiti on account of commencement of construction prior to the issuance of the sanction letter. Mr. He said under the sanction order the building was to be completed by 15 February 1991. He further said that a penalty of Rs. 85,023. 00 was levied on the Samiti on account of commencement of construction prior to the issuance of the sanction letter. Mr. Sharma said that it was a huge construction and was being carried on for the past more than two years and could not have escaped the notice of the residents of the locality, and, therefore, it was too late for them to complain of any breach. In the rejoinder, Residents Association repudiated what Samiti had to say. ( 7 ) THE Residents Association then also filed an application on 1 August 1990 seeking to have a Local Commissioner appointed in the matter. By our order dated 31 October 1990, Ms. Paramjit Benipal, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner with a direction to visit the spot and inspect the plot in dispute (playfield) measuring 2. 60 acres and to submit a report as to whether the Samiti had constructed on any portion of the plot in dispute or not and to take photographs and measurements of the construction, if any, existing thereon. The report of the Local Commissioner was filed on 22 July 1991. She took the photographs, prepared a site plan as well. When she reached the site she found that construction was going on and about 30 workers were on the job. The area under construction was 0. 60977 acres. The walls were found to be unplastered at that time and doors and windows had not yet been fixed. Staircase was without railings and without any plastering. Flooring had been provided only for the rooms on the ground floor where classes were also being held. The Local Commissioner also found that the passages to the rooms and the varandahs had not been provided with flooring, and that the flooring had been started on the first and second floors. The top storey had been constructed only on about one fourth of the area under construction and the work was continuing. On 23 January 1992 we made the following order :- Present: Mr. K. K. Lahiri, Advocate, with Mr. S. K. Manaktala, Mr. Pramod Sehgal and Mr. Aradhana Kumar for petitioner. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Advocate, with Ms. Amrita Sanghi for respondents. On 23 January 1992 we made the following order :- Present: Mr. K. K. Lahiri, Advocate, with Mr. S. K. Manaktala, Mr. Pramod Sehgal and Mr. Aradhana Kumar for petitioner. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Advocate, with Ms. Amrita Sanghi for respondents. CCP 239/89: " In this appeal, petitioners have filed this application against Shri Srinivas Sharma, Secretary, Arvachin Shiksha Samiti who is running Arvachin Bharti Bhawan Senior Secondary School, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. When this appeal was filed, this court issued an order dated 9. 12. 86 restraining the respondents from making any further construction on the disputed plot of land and since the counsel for first respondent had stated that only boundary wall was being constructed, an order was passed to maintain status quo. On the application of the appellant, a Local Commissioner had been appointed who submitted his report on 11. 12. 86. Thereafter when the appellant found that the order was being breached, the appellant filed the presnt application. On notice of show cause being issued, the reply was filed by the first respondent- Samiti who allegedly was making the construction. A Local Commissioner was also appointed on application of the appellant who has since submitted her report. We are of the view that court s orders have been breached with impunity inasmuch as construction had been made on the disputed plot apart from there being boundary walls surrounding the disputed land. We bad listed this matter yesterday and during the course of hearing we had directed counsel for respondent for the presence of an officer of the Samiti in person. Therefore, Mr. Anroop Sharma, who says that he is Director of the school run by the Samiti, is present. Though application has been filed to take contempt proceedings against only Srinivas Sharma, we are of the view that in such a matter, all the members of the Managing Committee of the Society should be given a notice to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them and if found guilty why they not be punished. We are informed by Mr. Rohtagi that members of the Managing Committee at the relevant time were S/shri Shiv Kumar Vats, D. K. Jain, Sriniwas Sharma (named respondent) Brahm Dutt Sharma, Mrs. Krishna Bhatia and the Principal Mrs. Leela Nagpal, Manager Sh. Inderjeet Sharma and Sh. Anroop Sharma. We accordingly issue notice to all of them. Mr. We are informed by Mr. Rohtagi that members of the Managing Committee at the relevant time were S/shri Shiv Kumar Vats, D. K. Jain, Sriniwas Sharma (named respondent) Brahm Dutt Sharma, Mrs. Krishna Bhatia and the Principal Mrs. Leela Nagpal, Manager Sh. Inderjeet Sharma and Sh. Anroop Sharma. We accordingly issue notice to all of them. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi states that there is no need to individually serve notice on all of them and he will appear for all of them and he will appear for all of them and he shall also bring them in court in person. To be listed on 28th January, 1992. "thereafter, affidavits have been filed by S/shri D. K. Jain, Braham Dutt Sharma, Inderjeet Sharma, Mrs. Krishna Bhatia, Anurup Sharma son of Shri Srinivas Sharma, Shiv Kumar Vatsa, and Smt. Lila Nagpal. All the affidavits are verbatim the same. These deponents have taken the stand that they had always been under the impression that the area in dispute was only play field measuring 2. 03 acres which was to be kept as playfield attached to the school. It is stated that it is the Secretary of the Samiti which had been following day-to-day proceedings and that members of the Managing Committee did not follow day-to-day court proceedings. It is stated that Managing Committee had not carried out any construction in a surruptitious or a clandestine manner and the construction which was then being disputed was on 0. 57 acres which was commenced with full knowledge of the members of the Resident Association and after obtaining due sanction of building plans from the D. D. A. and D. U. A. C. The deponents further said that they were always under the impression that area of two acres meant for school building was not disputed while the Residents Association only wanted to retain the other two acres as a play ground/park for the colony. Reference has also been made to the affidavit of Shri Srinivas Sharma, Secretary of the Samiti. Then it was stated that the D. D. A. itself, which is party in the appeal, had passed the building plans after obtaining clearance from D. U. A. C. ( 8 ) WE may clarify that though in the allotment letter the land allotted in the third phase measured 2. Then it was stated that the D. D. A. itself, which is party in the appeal, had passed the building plans after obtaining clearance from D. U. A. C. ( 8 ) WE may clarify that though in the allotment letter the land allotted in the third phase measured 2. 60 acres, but in the plan prepared at the time of handing over possession it was mentioned that the area handed over was 2. 69 acres instead of 2. 60 acres. ( 9 ) THE parties submitted written submissions as well as addressed us in detail. ( 10 ) THERE could certainly be no doubt in the mind of any one that the dispute pertained to the allotment of 2. 69 acres of land and that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge had been stayed. Submission of the contemners is that the interim order did not pertain to whole of this piece of land but only to that portion of land which was to be used for play field and which measured 2. 03 acres only, annual ground rent of which was rupee one. Contemners say the whole dispute pertains to only this piece of land measuring 2. 03 acres which had been given to it for play field and on which the Residents Association wanted to hold its functions and use the same for the children of the colony. ( 11 ) WE do not think me contemners could have entertained any bonafide belief that the dispute merely related to 2. 03 acres of land described as play field and/or playground. As a matter of fact, the allotment of whole of land measuring 2. 69 acres was in issue, and the interim order pertained to whole of this piece of land measuring 2. 69 acres. An argument was raised that D. D. A. also sanctioned the plans on the belief that the dispute pertained to 2. 03 acres of land. This is entirely a wrong approach, and considering that, D. D. A. is also as much to blame for the breach, if any, of the court s order. The contemners cannot take advantage of the fault, if any, committed on the part of the D. D. A. in sanctioning the plans. 03 acres of land. This is entirely a wrong approach, and considering that, D. D. A. is also as much to blame for the breach, if any, of the court s order. The contemners cannot take advantage of the fault, if any, committed on the part of the D. D. A. in sanctioning the plans. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the plans were earlier rejected by the D. D. A. as the land with the society was not 4. 03 acres on the basis of which plans were sought to be sanctioned. This speed with which the construction was carried on and the fact that the construction started even before the plans were sanctioned, would rather show that the intention of the contemners was not bonafide. If they entertained any doubt, they could have come to the court for clarification of the order. Even when the second Local Commissioner was appointed he foud that extensive construction activity was on and still the contemners did not come to the court for any clarification. It was submitted that the present petition was barred by limitation. We do not agree. The breach of the court s order is a continuing offence from the day the construction started and till the time it is completed. Mr. Rohtagi said that in the notice sent by the High Court the word "playfield" was mentioned which was limited to 2. 03 acres of land as per the letter of allotment of D. D. A. This submission is also incorrect inasmuch 45 the interim orders were made in the presence of the counsel for the society and they were well aware of the purport and intent of the order. Needless to say this Court has also jurisdiction to punish for its contempt being a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution. It does appear to us that the contemners have no regard for law and by their actions they have brought the court process to redicule. There has been wilful disobedience to the court s order. We, therefore, hold that the contemners are guilty of having committed breach of this Court s order and they are to be punished and directions given so that contemners do not take Advantage of their breach, and status quo ante is achieved, if the circumstances so permit. There has been wilful disobedience to the court s order. We, therefore, hold that the contemners are guilty of having committed breach of this Court s order and they are to be punished and directions given so that contemners do not take Advantage of their breach, and status quo ante is achieved, if the circumstances so permit. For this we will give yet another notice to the contemners and fix the matter on 26 August 1994. The contemners shall all be present in court in person on that date.