Judgment M. B. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) AS shall be presently shown that despite the machinery available with the respondents to see that the orders of this court are executed and complied with, the orders of this court are not being executed and actions as directed by this Court are not being seriously taken. Ours is a country and society being governed by rule of law. We have chosen a democratic set up and it is the duty of the executive that as and when judiciary makes any order, it must be seen that the said order is complied with, if necessary, even by use of reasonable force, otherwise the democracy of the country will be jeopardised. ( 2 ) I will proceed to show that in this case despite the orders of this court no worthwhile efforts have been made to see that the orders of this court are complied with. ( 3 ) THERE is a village Panchayat Baghsuri in Sub Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer. On the south of village Baghsuri there is a tank, known as Budhsagar Tank and the boundaries of which are near about 4 to 5 Kms. Agricultural lands of about 2000 bighas situated in the vicinity of this tank belonging to the villagers of the three villages, namely Baghsuri, Budhpura and Lasmipura were irrigated from the natural water collected in this tank. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation ajmer, is in charge of this tank and irrigation charges were used to be collected by them. The majority of the population in the three villages consists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes namely Bhils, Bhambhis and Regars and there is some population of different castes also namely Mahajans, Brahmans, Telis, Kumhars, Mehrats, Rawats and Jats. ( 4 ) TOWARDS West to the three villages is village Banevda, which is about 3 kms. from village Baghsuri and the majority of the population of village Banevda consists of Gujars, Rawats and Rajputs. Budhsagar tank exists for the last more than 400 years and the catchment area of the tank includes the hillocks of Moi-Mangri and Pachmata and the lands and forests situated in between. Various nalas form natural water course to Budhsagar tank. The rainy water of the catchment area flows through the nalas to the tank which is collected there and used for irrigation and drinking purposes for the village population and animals. Various nalas form natural water course to Budhsagar tank. The rainy water of the catchment area flows through the nalas to the tank which is collected there and used for irrigation and drinking purposes for the village population and animals. ( 5 ) SOME times in the year 1966 residents of village Banevda raised a mud wall and also constructed a pucca wall in the bed of the natural water course with a view to appropriate the rainwater and thus obstructed the natural flow of water reaching Budhsagar tank, and the result obviously was it caused loss and injury to the villagers of the three villages. An application under Section 133, Cr. P. C. was filed by some villagers before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ajmer who made a conditional order to remove the obstruction on 26/03/1968, but ultimately it was vacated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate sometime in the year 1970. A criminal revision petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge who too dismissed it on 2/12/1970. Against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Sessions Judge a criminal revision was filed in this court which was registered as Cr. Revision Petition No. 230/71 which was accepted under its order dated 26/03/1974 by this Court whereby the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was set aside and a direction was issued to remove the obstruction within a period of one month from the date of aforesaid order. A perusal of the aforesaid order of this court made in the criminal revision petition will show that B. P. Beri J. as he then was, who gave that judgment, had made the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 28/07/1966 absolute and directed the opposite parties to remove the obstruction within a period of one month from the date of the said order. The matter did not end there and the villagers of village Banevda filed a civil suit setting aside the findings recorded under S. 133, Cr. P. C. to which a reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order and that civil suit was registered as Suit No. 56/ 1974 Rewata and others v. Chhitar and others but the learned Munsif Nasirabad dismissed the suit on 16/09/1981. It became final as no appeal was preferred against the order of the learned Munsif dated 16/09/1981. It became final as no appeal was preferred against the order of the learned Munsif dated 16/09/1981. Public of three villages moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ajmer again for getting compliance of the order of this Court dated 26/03/1974. Formal orders for compliance of the order were passed on 7/02/1977 and 1/4th of the obstruction raised by the public of Banevda was removed but the remaining obstruction remained there as it is. Therefore, again an application was moved on 27/02/1977 and orders for compliance were again passed on 20/05/1977 directing the Superintendent of Police and the Irrigation Department to comply with the directions given by this court. Despite the fact the suit filed by the villagers of Banevda had been dismissed, the obstruction was not removed. ( 6 ) SIMILAR situation arose in respect of Khasra No. 1014 and an obstruction was caused by the public of Banevda to the flow of natural water through the nala by raising a wall in the aforesaid khasra No. 1014 and again proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P. C. were initiated before the City Magistrate, Ajmer and a conditional order dated 6/04/1966 which was made absolute directing the villagers of village Banevada to remove the obstruction. A revision petition was filed which was dismissed. The matter was taken up to this court and the revision petition filed in this court was dismissed by this Court (Kan Singh J. as he then was) on 23/03/1971. It will thus be seen that despite the order for removal of obstruction to the flow of water the order was not complied with and therefore a writ petition (No. 2389/ 86) was filed by the villagers of three villages, namely Baghsuri, Budhpura and Lakshmipura in which, the State of Rajasthan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ajmer and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Ajmer, were arrayed as the respondents. That writ petition was for enforcement of the aforesaid orders made from time to time and for removal of the obstruction made by the villagers of village Banevda. That writ petition was for enforcement of the aforesaid orders made from time to time and for removal of the obstruction made by the villagers of village Banevda. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court under its order dated 21/01/1987 and this Court directed as under :-"it is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall remove/ or get removed the obstruction raised by the public of village Banewada, in khasra numbers 1014 and 1018 causing obstruction to the natural flow of water reaching Budhsagar dam and further ensure that no such fresh construction is caused in the natural flow of water in future. The direction given above be complied within two months of the passing of this order and the compliance report be submitted to this court. "despite the aforesaid order, it appears that the respondents have not complied with the same. ( 7 ) IT was under the aforesaid circumstances that Misc. Application No. 52/ 1990 has been filed. A perusal of the aforesaid application will show that it has been mentioned therein that the respondents have not made bona fide and sincere efforts to comply with the aforesaid orders under which they were directed to comply the same within two months from the date of order. ( 8 ) A contempt petition was filed in this Court and in the contempt proceedings the District Judge Ajmer was directed to make an enquiry and submit his report to this court and the District Judge Ajmer after making the enquiry submitted his report to this court which is dated 10/08/1988. A perusal of the aforesaid report (Annr. R/ 2) of the learned Sessions Judge will show that the construction had not been removed and the flow of water was not restored. A look at para 10 of the aforesaid report will show that the learned Sessions Judge has given his final result of his investigation and as per that final result a mud wall 900 in length and 9 to 10 in height has been constructed and only a cut in the length of 36 and in depth 2-2/ 3 and 3-/1/2 has been made and it is not possible that the water will flow from Devsagar to Budhsagar and the water can only flow if the cut is further made more deep and therefore there has been a partial compliance with the order of this court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid report the contempt petition was dismissed and notices were discharged. Be that as it may, it can be said the order of this court under which directions were given which directions have been extracted in the earlier part of this order, has not been complied with and the natural flow of water to Budhsagar has not been restored and obstruction has not been removed. ( 9 ) IT will be seen from the reply to the present miscellaneous application filed on behalf of the respondents that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 visited the site immediately after the issue of notice of contempt petiton and tried to persuade the residents of village Banevda who were adamant not to comply with the order of this Court. The law and order situation was worst and the respondents sought police aid and along with Deputy Superintendent and other sub inspectors of police and about 80 constables went there but still the villagers of village Banevda did not permit them to enter the village and the villagers were armed with lathis and other weapons with them and they obstructed the road by putting stones and also protested by way of hanging black parted mud-pots and gari. From the reply, it will be clear that it is not disputed that the order of this court has not been complied with and there was only token compliance and the reason of not complying with the order of this court was that law and order situation was created by the villagers of village Banevda. The question is whether, if the law and order situation is created, the respondents can refuse to see that the order of this court, or for that matter, any other court is complied with. The question is also that even assuming that law and order situation was created by one party, as is said to have been created in this case, is it not necessary for the executive to see that the orders of this court are complied with, and if necessary, even by use of reasonable force. The question is also that even assuming that law and order situation was created by one party, as is said to have been created in this case, is it not necessary for the executive to see that the orders of this court are complied with, and if necessary, even by use of reasonable force. I have already said in the earlier part of this order that ours is a society which is governed by rule of law and it is the duty of the executive to see that the orders of this court are complied with, whatever may be the situation and if it is likelihood that there may be law and order situation, all necessary help to the respondents by the State must be provided and the parties must be persuaded to comply with the orders of this court, and despite the efforts of persuasion do not lead to any result and despite the same the order of this court is not complied with, then it is the duty of the executive to see that police help, if necessary, is taken to see that the order of this court is complied with. The executive cannot be allowed to take shelter under the pretext that the law and order situation was created or is likely to be created and therefore it is unable to comply with the orders of this court. In the present case there have been orders by various Courts from time to time in favour of the petitioner including this court but they have not been complied with fully and as said earlier there was only a token compliance but still the contempt petition was dismissed and the notices were discharged. I am of opinion that in a case of present nature it is statutory duty of the respondents to comply with the order of this court, firstly by persuasion and if the efforts of persuasion fall, then by use of reasonable force as may be necessary but in any case the obstruction must be removed and the natural flow of water must be restored and thereby the conditional order under Section 133, Cr. P. C. which has been made absolute has to be complied with. ( 10 ) ). P. C. which has been made absolute has to be complied with. ( 10 ) ). Consequently, I allow this application and direct the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Home Commissioner and other contemners to see that the order of this court is complied with first by persuasion of the villagers and if the efforts of persuasion fail then by use of reasonable force and what should be the reasonable force will depend on the situation but in any case it must be reasonable force and the reasonable force will include the police help, and if the situation so warrants, para-military help also. It is the duty of the State to control law and order situation even if it is likely to be created in the execution of the order of this court, but at any rate the order of this court should be complied with, as early as possible but in no case later than four months. If the order of this court is not still complied with, this court will have to take serious view of the matter and I am sure that such a situation will not be allowed to be developed by the respondents-contemners as well as other higher authorities of the State. Application allowed.