Cyriac Joseph ( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents (including the newly added respondent) agreed that the civil contemptpetition itself can be heard and disposed of. Accordingly, civil contempt petitionwas heard and it is being finally disposed of. ( 2 ). M/s. Bennette Coleman and Company Ltd. , filed CWP 130/81 challengingthe land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of field No. l08 Min (39-1)and 109 (15-3) of village Massudpur, New Delhi. The company also filed CM 201 /81 praying for stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land. By orderdated 23/01/1981 in CM 201/81 this Court directed as follows- "notice for 12. 2. 81. Status quo as at present be maintained. "on 7/04/1981 the Court passed the following order:-"status quo in regard to possession till the final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the respondent states that except two biswas in Khasra No. l08the possession of all other land is taken on 29/12/1980. Counsel forthe petitioner contests this claim and has filed an affidavit in this respectstating that possession is with petitioner. Considering these rival claims, Iorder that the status quo as of today in regard to the possession shall bemaintained by the parties till the disposal of the writ petition. "thereafter, the company filed CM 7306/92 praying for a direction restrainingthe Delhi Development Authority (for short called dda ) and the landacquisition authorities from interfering with the construction of a compound wallon the said property by the petitioner. It was stated in the application that in viewof the various attempts by mischief mongers to encroach upon the said land, thecompany who was in possession of the land might be permitted to construct thecompound wall on the property without prejudice to the rights of the petitionerand the respondents in the writ petition. While the said application was pending,the company constructed the compound wall and finally when the applicationcame up for hearing on 29/03/1993 the learned Counsel for the companyinformed the Court that the compound wall had already been constructed. Thereupon, the application was dismissed by the Court observing that the orderas prayed for, if passed by the Court, would create further complications. It isin these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this civil contempt petitionalleging that the action of the respondent in constructing the compound wallamounted to committing civil contempt. ( 3 ). Thereupon, the application was dismissed by the Court observing that the orderas prayed for, if passed by the Court, would create further complications. It isin these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this civil contempt petitionalleging that the action of the respondent in constructing the compound wallamounted to committing civil contempt. ( 3 ). It is clear from the averments in the civil contempt petition and in the orderspassed in CM 201 /81 in CW 130/81 that there was disputes between the petitionerherein and the respondent company regarding the possession of the land inquestion. Both the petitioner DDA as well as the respondent company claimed tobe in possession of the land and this was specifically noted in the order dated 7/04/1981 in CM 201/81. However, the dispute was not resolved by the Courtin that order. The Court only directed that status quo as on the date of the orderin regard to the possession should be maintained by the parties till the disposalof the writ petition. It is obvious that the Court was not in a position to determinewho amongst the contestants was in possession of the land. In these circumstancesthe respondent company cannot be said to have wilfully disobeyed the order ofthe Court by proceeding on the assumption that the company was in possession ofthe land. The further question is that even assuming that the company was inpossession of the land, was it open to the company to construct a compound wallon the land in view of the order directing to maintain status quo regardingpossession, without permission. It may be possible to argue that when thedirection was only to maintain status quo in regard to possession and there wasno specific order prohibiting any construction on the land by the party in possession, the party in possession was free to make constructions. However, in this casethe respondent company chose to file an application in the writ petition seekingan order to prevent the DDA and the land acquisition authorities from interferingwith the construction of the compound wall. While the said application waspending the compound wall was constructed. According to the affidavits filed bythe respondents in the civil contempt petition they were constrained to proceedwith the construction of the compound wall without waiting for the outcome ofthe application in view of the imminent danger of encroachment of the land bymischief mongers and inview of the delay in disposing of the application. According to the affidavits filed bythe respondents in the civil contempt petition they were constrained to proceedwith the construction of the compound wall without waiting for the outcome ofthe application in view of the imminent danger of encroachment of the land bymischief mongers and inview of the delay in disposing of the application. Learnedcounsel for the respondents pointed out that even though there was reference inthe application to permission , the prayer in the said application was not reallyfor permission but for a direction to the DDA and the land acquisition authoritiesnot to interfere with the construction of the boundary wall. From the copy ofthe application (Annexure-A) produced by the respondent it can be seen that it ispossible to take a view that the statement of the learned Counsel for therespondents is correct. Whatever that be, while disposing of CM 7306/92 thiscourt did not comment on the conduct of the respondent-company in constructingthe compound wall during the pendency of the application. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-company that they were not seeking permission of the Court to construct the compound wall and that they were onlyseeking protection by the Court from the interference of the DDA and the landacquisition authorities with the construction of the compound wall. It is possibleto understand the prayer in CM 7306/92 in the manner in which the learnedcounsel for the respondent-company wants me to understand. The worst thatmay be said against the applicant in CM 7306/92 is that it was not proper onits part to construct the boundary wall while the said application was pending. Buti am not concerned with the propriety as such in this civil contempt petition. Thereal question is whether the respondent-company wilfully disobeyed the ordersof the Court pased on 23/01/1981 and 7/04/1981. From the conductof the respondent-company in making an application to the Court to prevent thedda and land acquisition authorities from interfering with the construction ofthe compound wall, it is obvious that the respondent-company did not want toconstruct the compound wall behind the back of the DDA and the land acquisitionauthorities or the Court. Moreover, it had stated in the application that thepurpose of constructing the compound wall was to prevent encroachment of landby mischief mongers and that the compound wall was being constructed withoutprejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. Moreover, it had stated in the application that thepurpose of constructing the compound wall was to prevent encroachment of landby mischief mongers and that the compound wall was being constructed withoutprejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. It hadalso stated in the application that in the event of the company not succeeding in thewrit petition it would be obliged to remove the compound wall and it would notbe entitled to claim any compensation from the authorities concerned towardsthe compound wall. Inview of the filing of the application and the abovementionedstatements contained in the application, I am inclined to hold that the respondent-company had no intention to wilfully disobey the orders of this Court. On theother hand, having noted the usual conduct of the litigants in this Court, I shouldobserve that the conduct of the respondent-company in filing an application in thewrit petition bringing to the notice of the Court its intention to construct thecompound wall for the protection of the land stated to be in its possession, withoutprejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the respondents in the writ petition,deserves appreciation. Even this Courtesy is not shown to the Court by most ofthe litigants who obtain the so called status quo orders. In this context it shouldbe noted that the petitioners who also claim possession of the land were alertedby CM 7306/92 about the respondent-company s proposal to construct thecompound wall. But the petitioners did not move a little finger to prevent theconstruction of the compound wall while the construction was going on. If thepetitioners were actually in possession and if they were of the view thatconstruction of the compound wall by the respondent-company was in violationof the Court s order, they could have moved the Court for appropriate orders toprevent such construction. Having failed to do so, the action of the petitioners infiling the contempt petition after the completion of the construction will not serveany useful purpose. Though I am accepting the contention of the respondent-company that byconstructing cormpound wall it had no intention to violate the orders passed by thiscourt and that its sole intention was to protect the land from encroachment, I makeit clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the question of possession of theland which was left unresolved by the Court while passing orders in CM 201 /81. The controversy regarding possession of the land will have to be resolved in thewrit petition itself. In this context I should also refer to the affidavits filed by Shriashok Kumar Jain, Chairman of the company and Shri Ramesh Chand Jain,executive Director. It is specifically stated by them that the compound wall wasbuilt without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the writ petition and that inthe event of not succeeding in the writ petition the compound wall would beremoved without claiming any compensation from the authorities concerned. It isfurther stated that the claims of the parties in the writ petition would be examinedby this Court without referring to the construction of compound wall and thecompany would not make any claim on the basis of the compound wall to satisfythis Court in regard to possession of the land in question. Even though I amdismissing the civil contempt petition, the respondent-company will be boundby the statements made in those affidavits. In fact the DDA can be happy andgrateful to the company for taking necessary steps for protecting the land fromencroachment during the pendency of the writ petition because in the event ofsucceeding in the, writ petition the DDA will have the land protected fromencroachers at the cost of the respondent-company. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the respondents have committed any wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court making them liable to bepunished for committing civil contempt. Accordingly, civil contempt petition is dismissed.