JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition arises out of an order dated 18.12.1986 passed by this court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2424/86. 2. The Court had on 18.12.1986 made the following order on the stay application filed along with the writ petition: "Issue notice of this stay petition. Meanwhile the statusquo as it exists today shall be maintained till further orders. Rule is made returnable within four weeks." 3. According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 435/71 Jankinath v. State of Rajasthan while allowing the same vide order dated 5.8.80, the Court had directed respondent No.5 to remove the varbed wire fencing that has been installed around the land in dispute and to remove any other obstruction or obstructions placed by its employees on or near the said land which interferes with the possession of the petitioner over the said land. The petitioner has stated that despite the aforesaid judgment of the court, the State of Rajasthan and its officers did not remove the obstructions as well as the fencing of varbed wires and thus they have shown scant disregard to the order of the Court. 4. In Writ Petition No. 2424/86, which was filed by petitioner Shyamlal, this court had passed the order on 18.12.1980. A copy of this order was submitted to the respondents by the petitioner's counsel along with an application dated 22.12.1986. 5. The petitioner has asserted that some two months back, the officers and servants along with labourers came to the land in dispute for the purpose of raising construction by putting wooden wall and tin sheds. The petitioner came to know that these persons belong to the Public Works Department and had come there for the purpose of construction with a view to convert the land for exhibition site for the Departments of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner personally informed them about the stay order of the court, but these persons did not take notice of the orders of the Court and started their work. The petitioner personally approached the respondents as also the Director, Public Relations and the Officers of the Public Works Department to remove the aforesaid construction. A notice for initiating contempt proceedings was given to the non-petitioners, but the construction has not been removed. Thus, according to the petitioner, the non-petitioners have committed contempt of court. 6. The petitioner personally approached the respondents as also the Director, Public Relations and the Officers of the Public Works Department to remove the aforesaid construction. A notice for initiating contempt proceedings was given to the non-petitioners, but the construction has not been removed. Thus, according to the petitioner, the non-petitioners have committed contempt of court. 6. A reply to the contempt petition has been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners, in which it has been asserted that no obstruction is being caused in the enjoyment of possession of the land, which is in possession of the petitioners and is occupied by him in the name of mandir, but the petitioner has been making encroachment on the Government land and in order to fore-stall the action against him for unauthorised encroachment of the Government land, he filed the second Writ Petition. The site plan produced by the petitioner has been seriously disputed by the respondents. The respondents have asserted that status-quo of the property as it existed in 1963 is continuing even as on date. The respondents have also objected against the action of the petitioner in impleading them as party. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. At the very out set, we would like to observe that there is no justification whatsoever for impleading Shri V.B.L. Mathur as non-petitioner in the contempt petition. Nothing has been alleged by the petitioner against him, what to say to prove any disobedience of the courts order by him or at his instance or under his instructions. The casual manner, in which the parties to the contempt proceedings are impleaded cannot be appreciated by the Court. True it is that every individual including the Officers of the Government are bound to comply with the Courts' order, but at the same time, it is the responsibility of the petitioner approaching the Court with the allegation of disobedience of the Court's order, to specify the particular act of the person or the officer, which has resulted in disregard to the Court's order. The proceedings for contempt should not be taken lightly by either side. 9. We are of the opinion that there is a serious controversy between the parties about the position of property in question, which existed on 18.12.1986. The proceedings for contempt should not be taken lightly by either side. 9. We are of the opinion that there is a serious controversy between the parties about the position of property in question, which existed on 18.12.1986. According to the respondents, the property is in the same position as it was since 1963 and according to the petitioner, constructions have been raised after 18.12.1986. No evidence has been produced on record to show that after 18.12.1986 any construction has been raised on the property in dispute. There is nothing on record to establish this fact. 10. We are not satisfied that any contempt has been committed by the respondents by committing any breach of the Court's order dated 18.12.1986. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contempt petition. 11. 1n the result, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices of contempt petition issued against the respondents stand discharged. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) for impleading non petitioner No. 1 as party to the petition without any cause. *******