JUDGMENT 1. - Pema Ram and Bhagwana Ram have applied to this Court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of contempt proceedings against Shri Fateh Singh Charan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh on the ground that the Sub Divisional Magistrate wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court passed in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 67/1975 (Pemaram on the another v. Bhagirath and another)-on 10th Aug., 1976 and again attached the land in dispute although its possession had been delivered to the petitioners on 17.4.74. by the Receiver 2. A notice of the application for contempt was given to Shri Fatehsiagh Charan to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice, Shri Fatehsingh Charan tendered an unconditional apology to this Court and submitted certain facts for clarification. He admitted in his reply that the possession of the land in dispute had been handed over to the petitioners by the Receiver in compliance of the final order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 26.2.74 declaring the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land at the relevant time. But according to him, the Receiver did not send a report regarding delivery of possession to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hence, in the absence of any such report of the Receiver, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. he attached the land in dispute in compliance of the order of this-court dated 10th August., 1976, which reads as follows:- If the possession of the land is not delivered to any party, the land shall remain under attachment till a fresh final order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate." 3. Mr. Fateh Singh Charan further submitted that when he came to know about the fact that the land has been wrongly attached and the petitioners were deprived of their peaceful possession, he vacated his order dated 30.11.76 and released the land from attachment. 4. In view of the fact that the mistake committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh was bona fide on account of having not received any report about the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners by the Receiver on 17.4.74 I feel inclined to held that Shri Fatehsingh Charan is not liable for Contempt of this Court. In view of the fact that the mistake committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh was bona fide on account of having not received any report about the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners by the Receiver on 17.4.74 I feel inclined to held that Shri Fatehsingh Charan is not liable for Contempt of this Court. It appears that he was labouring under a bona fide impression that the possession of the land had not been delivered to any party and that the order of the High Court dated 10th August, 1976 must be complied with. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted before me that the error committed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been rectified and the possession of the land was again delivered to the petitioners without delay. Taking all these facts into consideration, I did not feel inclined to take any action against Shri Fateh Singh Charan. The application for contempt of this court is therefore, dismissed.Application For contempt Proceedings Dismissed. *******