ORDER S.K. Mookerji, J. - This Contempt Application has been filed by one Peer Bux against Raja Ram and others. It appears that the dispute relates to Khata No. 194 situate in village Korari, Pargana and tehsil Babeuru, district Banda. Opposite party No. 1, Raja Ram, got a patta in respect of some portion of the land of the applicant. The applicant moved an application before the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division for cancellation of the said patta. By an order dated 10-12-1982 the patta was cancelled. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1, Raja Ram, filed a Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1983. In this writ petition an ex parte order was granted by this Court on4-5-1983 in following terms : "Issue notice. Meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 10th December, 1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi shall remain stayed." The applicant moved an application for vacating the interim order dated 4-5-1983 and on 18-2-1986 this Court passed the following orders : "Heard-counsel for the parties. The parties shall maintain the status quo in regard to their possession over the disputed land as was existing prior to the date of passing of the order of this Court dated 4-5-1983." It is further stated in the petition that on 4-7-1986 the opposite party No. 1, Raja Ram, in spite of the order of this Court dated 4-5-1983 and 18-2-1986, forcibly took possession of the land in dispute, therefore, it has been averred that the opposite party No. 1 has wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court passed in the Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1983 on 18-2-1986. The averments against opposite parties 2 and 3 in this application are that neither of them has taken any step for preventing opposite party No. 1, Raja Ram, from damaging the applicant's crops and property. In view of the above allegations, this Court on 15-9-1986 issued notice to the opposite parties requiring them to show cause why proceedings for civil contempt not be initiated against them for the reasons given in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit. Counter-affidavits have been filed but the rejoinder-affidavit has not been filed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Counter-affidavits have been filed but the rejoinder-affidavit has not been filed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act runs as under : "No Court shall initiate any proceeding for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 4. Paragraph 11 of the Application runs as under : "That on 4-7-1986 the contemner No. 1 along with his associates actually tried to take forcible possession of the applicant's land, damaged portion of applicant's house and started destroying the applicant's crop." 5. Thus, it is clear that the alleged contempt is stated to have been committed on 4-7-1986. 6. The question arises for determination is whether this court shall initiate any proceeding for contempt to-day that is 13th Nov. 1987. I have already pointed out that on 15-9-1986 this Court issued notice to the opposite parties only to show cause why proceedings for civil contempt be not initiated against them. There is absolutely no order thereafter on record to indicate that the proceeding under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act was, at any stage, initiated by this Court. All that this court is called upon to do today (13th Nov. 1987) is to initiate the proceeding under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act against the opposite parties. Mere issuing a notice to show cause why the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated shall not amount to actual initiation of the proceeding under the aforesaid Act. 7. After hearing the parties and examining material facts on record and also perusing the provisions of S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, I am of the opinion that today (13-11-1987) this Court is not competent to i initiate any proceeding for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, that is July 4, 1986. 8. This petition is dismissed in view of the provisions of S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The notice issued on 15-9-1986 by this Court is, hereby, discharged.