JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) – This writ petition has been filed by Shri Nitin Sehgal who claims to be the owner of the basement which he has described as lower ground floor of the property No. 4/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The admitted position is that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had sanctioned the building plan for construction of a basement, ground, first and second floors only on this property. It is contended by Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a portion which has been described as the lower ground floor of the property. The writ petition has been filed on the grievance that the respondents are not treating the portion which is occupied by the petitioner as the ground floor and the portion occupied by the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 as first, second and third floors of the property. 2. The petitioner has also placed before this Court the copies of the proceedings in an earlier writ petition which was filed by him. The principle contention to support the prayer made in the writ petition is that the entire area has been constructed in a similar manner wherein basements have been described as lower ground floors and that no action has been taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the same. 3. The writ petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Anoop Bagai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the MCD and Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. My attention has been drawn to proceedings in the earlier writ petition to urge that this petitioner has failed to comply with undertakings given to the Court. Reliance has also been placed on an order dated 29th November, 2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 8852/2007 wherein this Court had directed that the MCD shall ensure that undertaking given by the present petitioners (respondent No. 2 therein) are strictly complied with. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition I find that Shri Nitin Sehgal had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 5886/2000. This writ petition was listed before the Court on 28th September, 2000. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition I find that Shri Nitin Sehgal had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 5886/2000. This writ petition was listed before the Court on 28th September, 2000. I find that in the order which has been recorded on that date, the Court had noted that the MCD was taking action pursuant to orders passed in a writ petition bearing No. 4414/2000. The petitioner had sought a stay against demolition action which was being undertaken by the MCD. This prayer was rejected by the Court. The present petitioner who was present in Court had on the 28th of September, 2000 undertaken that on receipt of the site plan from the MCD he would demolish the unauthorised construction and deviations pointed out therein" within one week thereafter. Certain other directions were issued with regard to access to be provided to the MCD staff to make the site plan and measure the deviations as also with regard to the demolition which was to be undertaken. 5. It is an admitted fact before the Court today that the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking given by him to this Court as back as on 28th September, 2000 and the premises continue to exist in the same, condition as they existed on that date. 6. It is not worthy that this is despite orders of demolition which were being executed by the MCD against which the earlier writ petition had been filed by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Anoop Bagai, learned standing Counsel on instructions from Shri S.I. Bairwa, Executive Engineer of the concerned zone has submitted that the property is one of the properties which had been sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pursuant to further orders of the Division Bench. The seals affixed by the MCD had been tampered by the petitioner. 8. It is well settled that buildings have to be raised strictly in accordance with the building plans sanctioned by the MCD in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Certain deviations which are compoundable have been permitted but this does not create any right in favour of any builder or citizen to raise construction as per his whim and fancy and seek its regularisation. Certain deviations which are compoundable have been permitted but this does not create any right in favour of any builder or citizen to raise construction as per his whim and fancy and seek its regularisation. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had permitted a basement apart from some other floors. The builder and the petitioner have opted to assign the nomenclature of a lower ground floor to this portion. Such nomenclature as has been assigned by the builder and the petitioner would be of no consequence inasmuch as it is the nomenclature assigned as per the DMC Act, 1957, Building Bye-laws and the sanctioned building plan on which the matter has to be examined. Certainly the petitioner has no right to claim that the portion which is in its occupation was not a basement but was a ground floor inasmuch as the builder has raised the construction based on the sanction granted by the MCD. 9. It would therefore have to be held that expression, the lower ground floor has been utilised in respect of the basement which had been permitted to be constructed. In any case, Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, admits that part of the portion over which his client is seeking rights, is two and half feet below the ground level. The same cannot form part of the ground floor in any case. 10. It is also necessary to note that the petitioner having purchased the basement, rights of other parties vis-a-vis the other floors into which would include the ground, first and upper floor have come into existence. So far as the legality of the construction is concerned, it is for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to determine the same. In the instant case the MCD had considered the matter and passed orders of demolition which were being implemented. WP (C) No. 5886/2000 was filed assailing those orders and action of the MCD which considered the matter and is proceeding in accordance with law. 11. I find from the record placed before this Court that in compliance of the directions made by the Court on 28th September, 2000, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had made available the plan to the petitioner as back as on 3rd October, 2000. 11. I find from the record placed before this Court that in compliance of the directions made by the Court on 28th September, 2000, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had made available the plan to the petitioner as back as on 3rd October, 2000. The petitioner has not only failed to comply with his solemn undertaking given to the Court on 28th September, 2000 but even had the temerity to break open seals which were fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. This writ petition has been filed after deliberately flouting the orders of this Court for over seven years. In my view, the same is a grossest abuse of the process of law. The petitioner having wilfully violated the undertaking given to and the order passed by the Court has rendered himself liable for appropriate action under the contempt of Courts Act. 12. I find no merit in this writ petition which is therefore dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 30,000/- which shall be equally apportioned between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund, New Delhi. Costs shall be deposited within the period of one week from today. 13. The matter however cannot end here. In view of the wilful failure of the petitioner to comply with his undertaking given to the Court and the order passed on 28th September, 2000, notice is hereby issued to the petitioner to show cause why contempt of Court proceedings be not initiated against him. The petitioner who is present in Court accepts notice and prays for time to file a reply. Reply shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Mr. Anoop Bagai, learned Counsel representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall assist the Court in the contempt of Court proceedings which shall be listed before the appropriate Bench as per roster on 29th January, a 2008. 14. The Registry shall place the orders dated 28th of September, 2000 and 16th of the October, 2000 in W.P. (C) No. 5886/2000, the order passed today and to register the contempt petition separately and place the same before the appropriate Bench as per the roster. Writ Petition dismissed.