JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner has sought contempt proceedings against the respondent on the ground of deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 14th March, 2005. 2. The contention of the respondent is that against the order dated 14th March, 2005 an LPA was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court and against the order of Division Bench an SLP was preferred and order dated 14th March, 2005 stood materially altered by the order of Honble Supreme Court that the respondent had not committed any disobedience. 3. The brief narration of facts would be necessary. The order dated 14th March, 2005 gave following directions to the respondent. In the light of the above findings, a direction is issued to the DDA to process the case of the petitioner and complete all formalities such as issuing allotment letter and handing over of possession of the plot as per its entitlement in terms of the DDAs decision in 1997 within eight weeks from today. .4. A review was preferred against this order and this Review Petition was dismissed vide order dated 23rd March, 2006. DDA thereafter preferred an LPA which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 31st October, 2006. The Division Bench after considering the plea of DDA gave following directions:- In the light of the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it was on .account of the delay at every stage by the DDA that the school could not be shifted to a new building as DDA did not allot the said land to the respondent society. However, to cut short the controversy, Mr. Jain counsel for the respondent society states that in case the land is allotted in terms of the impugned order to the respondent society, the respondent society shall hand over the possession of 1250 sq. yds. of the land (sic. unauthorizedly occupied) which has been under their occupation where certain structure has been built fro the purposes of running the school. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, we feel that the DDA cannot have any impediment in allotment as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. yds. of the land (sic. unauthorizedly occupied) which has been under their occupation where certain structure has been built fro the purposes of running the school. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, we feel that the DDA cannot have any impediment in allotment as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we direct the appellant to complete the formalities of issuing a allotment letter and hand over the possession of the plot as per its entitlement in terms of the DDAs decision, 1992 within eight weeks from today. After the allotment is made, possession thereof is taken over, the respondent will construct a school building within 30 months. Counsel for the respondent says that after the building is constructed they will shift the school into the new building and immediately hand over to the DDA the possession of 1250 sq. yds. of the land (sic. under illegal occupation) after demolishing the superstructure existing thereon. 5. Against this order, an SLP was preferred by DDA before Honble Supreme Court and the following order was passed in SLP : The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the allotment shall be made in accordance with the existing law within three months. 6. The petitioner has contented that despite the order of this Court and dismissal of SLP by Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner, society has not been alloted land. .7. The contention of respondent is that the order of Supreme Court is very clear that the allotment has to be made in accordance with the existing laws. It is stated that the existing laws of DDA provide for allotment of public land to educational institutions and other institutions only by auction. Reliance is placed on Rule 4, 5 and 8 in Chapter II of Nazul Land Disposal Rules which read as under :- Persons to whom Nazul land may be allotted [(1)] The Authority may, in conformity with the plans, and subject to the other provisions of these rules, allot Nazul land to individuals, [body of persons, firms, companies], public and private institutions, co-operative house building societies, other co-operative societies of individuals, co-operative societies of industrialists and to the departments of the Central Government, State Governments and the Union territories. [(2) The Authority shall, in conformity with plans and subject to the provisions of these rules, dispose the Nazul land by auction to the following institutions: (a) hospitals; (b) dispensaries; (c) Nursing homes; (d) higher or technical education institutions; (e) community halls; (f) clubs; (g) schools: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall affect the allotment of land to the Central Government, a State Government, a Union territory and the local body for the said purpose.] 5. Rules of premium for allotment of Nazul land to certain public institutions [Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 4, the Authority may] allot Nazul land to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, other social or charitable institutions, religious, political, semi-political organizations and local bodies for remunerative, semi-remunerative or un-remunerative purposes at the premia and ground rent in force immediately before the coming into force of these rules, or at such .rates as the Central Government may determine from time to time. 8. Manner of allotment [Save as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 4, rules 5, 6 and 7, allotment of Nazul land for any purpose shall be made on payment of such premium as may be determined either by auction or by tender in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III or Chapter IV, as the case may be, of these rules] 8. It is submitted by the respondent that in view of the existing Rules, the respondent was unable to allot any land to the petitioner on pre- determined rates and the allotment can be done only by way of auction. The petitioner should participate in the auction of school plots. 9. In view of the fact that the orders passed by Single Judge of this Court and Division Bench of this Court got modified in the SLP, I consider that the petitioner cannot lay a claim that it should be alloted a plot of land at pre-determined rates either of 1992 or of 1997. The petitioner can claim allotment only as per existing procedure and existing Rules of DDA since the existing Rules of DDA provide that allotment of land has to be by auction, the petitioner should participate in the auction of school plots. 10. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Supreme Court provides that there has to be allotment and the petitioner cannot be compelled to participate in auction. 10. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Supreme Court provides that there has to be allotment and the petitioner cannot be compelled to participate in auction. The petitioner must be alloted a plot for the school in accordance with the judgment of Division Bench of this Court. Though, this allotment may be done as per existing Rules. I consider that when the existing Rules do not provide for allotment at pre-determined rates and only provide for allotment by way of auction or tender process, this Court while deciding the Contempt Petition cannot give a direction that the allotment must be done to the petitioner at a pre-determined rate. 11. I, therefore, consider that this Contempt Petition for giving direction to the respondent to do allotment at pre-determine rates to the petitioner is not maintainable. I also find that there is no violation of the order of this Court which stood modified by order of the Supreme Court. The petition is dismissed.