JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The first respondent herein filed C W P No 498/VJj challenging the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed in exercise of his powers under section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation? Act 19 1. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the grievance of the petitioner was that in Khasra No. 489/2 he was entitled to the extent of 4 Kanals 5 Marlas but m the proceedings of the Additional Director he had excluded 2 Kanal 15 Marlas from this Khasra number and included the same in the holdings of Jagdish Chand. who is also described at several places as Jagdish Ram, who was one of the owners who took Dart in \hl consolidation proceedings The said Jagdish Chand is the second respondent in the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for order initially, the petitioner had also filed civil misc. petition No 1022/89 for suspension of the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation In the said miscellaneous petition this court passed the following order on "Heard counsel on both sides. Status quo as on today will continue till disposal of the writ petition." 2. It is noticed from the record that on that date the counsel referred in the order were the counsel for the petitioner on one hand and the Deputy Advocate General on the other hand who was appearing for the State, No notice had been issued by that time either in the writ petition or in the miscellaneous petition to the private parties who are respondents 2 to 10 in the writ petition. The order also did not contemplate issue of notice those respondents. The order on the face of it is one till the disposal of the writ petition and it is a final order The order in the miscellaneous petition was passed without giving any opportunity to respondents No. 2 to 10 in the said petition to contest the same, 3. The writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 68 of 1994 on 18-11-1994. In that petition the relevant paragraphs read as follows : "That in violation of the orders passed by this Honble Court, the respondents are interfering in the property in dispute and have started collecting sand, crusher stones and bricks etc. The writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 68 of 1994 on 18-11-1994. In that petition the relevant paragraphs read as follows : "That in violation of the orders passed by this Honble Court, the respondents are interfering in the property in dispute and have started collecting sand, crusher stones and bricks etc. for the purposes of the construction over the land in dispute, It is pertinent to mention here that despite the stay orders passed by this Honble Court, respondent No 7-Shri Sansar Chand son of Shri Bangali has almost completed the construction of his house and has diverted the water flow towards the house of the petitioner in order to harass the petitioner and cause loss to the house of the petitioner. “That time and again with the help of some friends, the petitioner tried to stop the respondent from making construction over the land in dispute, but the respondent did not stop the construction The petitioner approached the police authorities also in this behalf vide application dated 5-7-1993 and thereafter also requested them many times to take action against the respondent, but no action whatsoever has been taken by any of the authorities. Copy of the said application is not traceable with the petitioner and hence the same is not being filed with this petition as the petitioner is unable to file the same." 4. The petitioner prayed for punishing the respondents therein for contempt. When the matter came up before court on December 28, 1994, the counsel for the petitioner therein represented to the Court that the grievance is only against respondent No 7 and respondent No 1 has been shown a formal party. The court directed issue of notice to respondent No 7 returnable within one month. When the matter again came up before the court on 24th February, 1995, the court recorded that one more notice should be issued to the seventh respondent to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him for violating the direction given by this Court on August 28, 19)0, in Civil Writ Petition No 4 >8/89, and punished accordingly. It was also made clear that if the seventh respondent did not appear either personally or through counsel and did not explain the circumstances appearing against him, it would be presumed that he had no defence to make and the matter would be decided accordingly in his absence. It was also made clear that if the seventh respondent did not appear either personally or through counsel and did not explain the circumstances appearing against him, it would be presumed that he had no defence to make and the matter would be decided accordingly in his absence. Again, the matter came up before the court on 31st March, 1995 On that date Ms Nishi Goel appeared on behalf of Shri K. D Shreedhar and submitted that Shri K. EX Shreedhar was appearing for the seventh respondent and power of attorney would be filed within a period of three weeks along with the reply. That prayer was granted. Counsel for the petitioner complained at that stage that the other respondents also started interfering in the land in dispute thereby violating the order of the court. Hence the court ordered notice to be issued to the other respondents to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them for violating the order of the court dated 28-8-1990. The respondents who were served with notice did not choose to appear before the court. 5. The matter was posted for final orders on 21-7-1995. The court, after recording the aforesaid facts, observed that the respondents had been given chance to explain the allegations but they had not appeared either personally or through counsel explaining the allegations in the case against them and that meant that they had no explanation to offer and the allegation made by the petitioner in the case was justified. Consequently, the court held that they were liable to be punished for contempt. Accordingly, the court passed a sentence against respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 10 of simple imprisonment of two months with fine of Rs 2,000 in each case The seventh respondent was also sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs. 2,000. 6. The aggrieved respondents have preferred this appeal In the memorandum of appeal it is stated that no construction was raised by any of the respondents (hereinafter they will be referred to as the appellants) and the allegations made against them in the contempt petition were not true. 2,000. 6. The aggrieved respondents have preferred this appeal In the memorandum of appeal it is stated that no construction was raised by any of the respondents (hereinafter they will be referred to as the appellants) and the allegations made against them in the contempt petition were not true. It is also stated that that the appellants had their houses over the land in dispute constructed long back and no construction was carried out after the passing of the order of status quo by this Court Further, it is averred that the appellants were under the impression that they would be defended by the same counsel in the contempt petition also and due to that bona fide impression they did not appear before the learned single Judge, 7. At the out set it should be pointed out that in so far as appellants 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are concerned, there is absolutely no material on record on the basis of which they can be punished for contempt. Even the record shows that the petition for contempt mentioned only the seventh respondent that he had violated the order of status quo. With regard to other respondents, there were only general allegations and nothing specific was stated against them But because learned Counsel, on a later date, made a representation to the court that the other respondents had also violated the order of the court, on that basis the court directed issue of notice to those persons. As it was, on that date, there was no specific allegation against them and there was no affidavit filed against them. In such a situation there was no warrant for issuance of notice to those respondents and the order of the learned single Judge passed against them is wholly unsustainable. As it was, on that date, there was no specific allegation against them and there was no affidavit filed against them. In such a situation there was no warrant for issuance of notice to those respondents and the order of the learned single Judge passed against them is wholly unsustainable. Just because the respondents did not appear before him, the learned single Judge presumed that they had committed contempt There must be at least prima facie evidence before the court on the basis of which the court has to come to the conclusion that the respondents had committed contempt In the absence of such evidence the impugned order is unsustainable and it is hereby set aside, 8 In so far as the sixth appellant is concerned, no doubt there was a specific allegation in the petition for contempt that he had violated the order passed by this court but the question arises as to what exactly was the order passed by this Court and whether it was directed against the sixth appellant. We have already referred to the fact that the writ petition is in challenge of the order passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings. A perusal of that order shows that the writ petitioner was claiming Khasra No. 489 1 from which ad extent of 2 Kanals 16 Marlas was excluded and the same was included in the area of Jagdish Chand who was the second respondent in the writ petition A perusal of the writ petition shows that the only claim was with reference to Khasra No. 489/2 and not any other Khasra number. Thus, the only dispute which was raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition related to Khasra No. 489/2 and that was directed as against the second respondent in the writ petition As against other respondents in the writ petition, including the sixth appellant herein, there was no dispute raised by the writ petitioner. 9. The order of status quo passed by this Court on August 28, 1990, has already been extracted by us. 9. The order of status quo passed by this Court on August 28, 1990, has already been extracted by us. On that date there was only counsel for the petitioner on one side and the Deputy Advocate General for the State on the other side The court, thought fit to hear both counsel and passed that order A perusal of the order itself shows that the court confined the order only to the parties which were heard at that stage. Otherwise the court would have directed notice to the other respondents if it thought necessary to hear the other respondents. The court thought it unnecessary to hear them and passed an order only with regard to respondent No. 1. Thus, the order of status quo as on that date passed by this Court was only as against the State Government, the first respondent—which meant that pursuant to the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation nothing further should be done by the first respondent till the disposal of the writ petition The court did not to pass any order as against the other respondents. 10. Further, in the contempt petition there is no allegation by the petitioner therein as against the sixth appellant herein that he had erected any construction over Khasra No 489/2 after the passing of the status quo order. In fact there is no allegation that after the passing of the status quo order any of the persons concerned had done anything with reference to Khasra No. 489/2 In such a situation there is no warrant to hold that the sixth appellant herein has violated the status quo order in any manner. 11. Thus, it follows that no contempt was committed by the sixth appellant also. 12 In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 21st July, 1995 in Contempt Petition (C) No 68/94 is set aside and the contempt petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.