ORDER 1. This petition has been moved with the prayer that proceedings for civil contempt be initiated against the respondents and they be punished for having committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court passed on 11th October, 84 in a writ petition. It is further urged that the respondents are also guilty of having committed civil contempt for disobeying the order dated 25th January 1985 passed by Commissioner, Varanasi Division in Misc. Appeal No. 9/35 of 84 of district Mirzapur. 2. The period during which proceedings for civil contempt could be initiated has expired on 10th of July, 86 as provided under S. 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. 3. This Court vide its order dated 11-10-84 quoted in para 5 of the Contempt Petition directed that petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed land by the respondents except, in accordance with law if the petitioners are in actual possession as claimed by them. The aforesaid order of this Court was served upon Nagar Palika on 26th November, 1984. 4. It is alleged that on 29th November, 84 the opposite parties 1 and 2 along with workers of Nagar Palika got the tinshed of the petitioner forcibly removed and took away articles of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a first information report. The Station Officer in local inspection on 30th November, 84 found the petitioner in possession of the land on the spot. The opposite parties again came on the spot on 10th of July, 1985 with their men and forcibly took away the articles of the petitioner and tried to dispossess the petitioner illegally and against the provisions of law. The first information report was again lodged. It is further deposed in para 12 that when the opposite parties 1 and 2 could not succeed to dispossess the petitioner then they in collusion with opposite party 3. Sri K. D. Singh, Inspector Incharge got the petitioner arrested in a false case under S. 107/116, Cr. P. C. It is further deposed in para 13 of the affidavit that on 9th of July, 85 the opposite parties 1 and 2 again implicated the petitioner in a false case under S. 107/116, Cr. P. C. and tried to dispossess him by use of force and took away the articles of the petitioner. A first information report was again lodged. P. C. and tried to dispossess him by use of force and took away the articles of the petitioner. A first information report was again lodged. The facts stated above leave no room for doubt that the petitioner has not actually been dispossessed from the disputed land according to his own version. His only grievance is that the opposite parties are harassing him and trying their best to dispossess him from the disputed land. This conduct of the opposite parties who happen to be responsible officials cannot be appreciated and must be condemned if it is true. But they cannot be held guilty of civil contempt because actually the petitioner has not been dispossessed from the disputed land. As observed above the respondents are harassing him and for that he has lodged first information reports at the Police Station and is seeking legal remedy. I hope the Investigating Agency would investigate the matter according to law faithfully and take suitable action in the matter. The facts stated above, however, do not make out a case for civil contempt. Moreover, the acts complained of have taken place in the month of July, 1985 and November, 1984 and the period during which proceedings for civil contempt could be initiated has expired as provided under S. 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. So, that is another hurdle in initiating the proceedings for civil contempt. 5. In para 8 of supplementary affidavit it is alleged that on 18th March, 1986 Raj Kumar Srivastava, Prabhari Adhikari has taken away the articles of the petitioner which amounts to dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed land. Taking away of the articles may amount to theft, robbery or dacoity but does not amount to dispossession of the petitioner and the petitioner does not himself say that on 18th March, 86 he has been actually dispossessed from the land in dispute. 6. The taking away of some articles belonging to the petitioner does not actually amount to dispossession of the petitioner and I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by taking away the articles the order passed by this Court has been rendered ineffective, when the petitioner actually claims to be in possession. 7. 7. In the result the period during which proceedings for civil contempt could be initiated has already expired on 10th July, 86 and it is not possible to initiate proceedings thereafter as provided under S. 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. Moreover as discussed above no case of civil contempt is made out from the facts deposed by the petitioner. The prayer for initiating proceedings for civil contempt is consequently rejected.