Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. In this application the petitioner prays for directing the opposite parties to implement the order dated 11.4.1990 passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 39/90 (R) and also for taking necessary action against the concerned authority under the provisions of contempt of Courts Act. 2. This case has a chequered career and, as such, in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, the factual backgrounds are required to be portrayed: The petitioner, Tata Iron & Steel Company (hereinafter referred to as Tisco) moved this Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction by filing Cr. W.J.C. No. 39/90 (R) with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum (shortly S.D.M.) and the officer incharge Golmuri Police Station for complying with the order dated 20.4.1987 passed by the S.D.M. himself by reason of which the said S.D.M. had directed restoration of possession of certain plots in Mouja Kalinath on the southern side of Namda Basti and eastern side of Railway including the eastern side of the said Namda Basti, P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur to Tisco. The case of Tisco was that it was forcibly and wrongly dispossessed by one Niranjan Singh, Respondent No. 5 in the said writ application and Respondent No. 6 (though the name of Respondent No. 6 is not mentioned in the writ petition). It was further stated that on 15.6.1970 the S.D.M., after considering evidences and hearing the parties, directed that the possession should be restored to the company but in spite of the said order Chanchal Singh, Respondent No. 4 and Niranjan Singh, Respondent No. 5 continued to remain in wrongful possession and, as such, the Tisco filed a petition before the S.D.M. praying for issuance of a writ of restoration of possession. Taking into consideration the fact that the land in dispute was already restored to the Tisco, the said petition was dismissed by the Executive Magistrate. However, the revisional Court being moved by Tisco, set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 29.9.1975 and directed him to issue necessary orders for complying with the order passed-under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. In the meantime, Chanchal Singh and Niranjan Singh filed title suit No. 140/77 before the Civil Court, Jamshedpur with a prayer to declare their right, title and possession over the said property. P.C. In the meantime, Chanchal Singh and Niranjan Singh filed title suit No. 140/77 before the Civil Court, Jamshedpur with a prayer to declare their right, title and possession over the said property. Initially interim injunction was granted by the Munsif but subsequently that was vacated in view of the order passed by the Revisional Court in the aforesaid revision preferred by Tisco. By order dated 19.9.1978 an Executive Magistrate was deputed to effect delivery of possession of the lands in question to Tisco. Since no action was taken on 9.5.1981 the S.D.M. passed an order directing Shree J. Bhatia, Magistrate to effect delivery of possession. Against that order Chanchal Singh moved, this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1051/81 (R) for quashing the same and Niranjan Singh was also impleaded as opposite party. The said Cr. Misc. petition was dismissed on 24.8.1983 holding that the company was entitled to be in possession of the disputed land in view of the order passed under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. Against that order of the High Court, Chanchal Singh moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P. 2833/83 but the same was permitted to be withdrawn on 12.12.1983. Even when, in spite of the withdrawal of the said S.L.P., the private respondents did not hand over the possession of the land to Tisco, it moved this Court in the said Cr.Writ Petition No. 39/90 (R) which was disposed of by a Division Bench, directing, inter alia the S.D.M. to take appropriate steps for giving effect to the final order passed in the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. by putting the company in possession of the lands within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 3. From the records it appears that being noticed the opposite parties, though appeared by filing respective show causes, but as a matter of fact, the order passed by the S.D.M. was not complied with on some grounds or other. This Court took as exception to the conduct of the authorities and ultimately directed the then S.P. Jamshedpur and the then Deputy Commissioner Singhbum East to appear before this Court to explain their conduct by filing further show causes. The contempt proceeding could not be finally disposed of by this Court in view of subsequent events and different stands taken by the State Authorities from time to time. The contempt proceeding could not be finally disposed of by this Court in view of subsequent events and different stands taken by the State Authorities from time to time. Ultimately the matter was finally heard on 2.7.1996 and the order was reserved. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemner submitted that after passing of the order dated 16.7.1970 under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and during the pendency of the litigation, Bihar Lands Reforms Act, 1950 was amended in the year, 1972 by reason of which the estate of Tisco vested in the State of Bihar. The validity of the Amending Act was challenged by the Tisco before the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition No. 2101/73. The company subsequently withdrew the said writ petition some times in 1981-82. The Bihar Legislature further amended the Bihar Lands Reforms Act by Amending Act of 1982. By this amending provision the estate of Tisco vested in the State of Bihar which was free from all encumbrances, Tisco, however, did not challenge the said amending provisions and virtually accepted the position that the estates of the Company has already vested in the State of Bihar. According to learned Counsel, in view of the same, an agreement for lease dated 4.8.1984 was entered into between the Company and the State of Bihar, Clause VII whereof reads thus: The vacant land may be used by the Company only for factory, production processes, providing civil amenities to the town and housing facilities to the employees of the Company. If the vacant land is put to any such use, the lease rent will be paid to the Government in accordance with the rate specified hereinbefore for such use. Government would be entitled to hold enquiry as to the bona fides such use and in case it is found that the use was not bona fide the State will be at liberty to resume such land. For any subsequent change in use of the land already put to use under this clause, information will be given to the Government and such change will also be subject to enquiry about the bona fides of the change as stated above. Further the State Government shall have the power to resume any such land required for its own use and/or any public purposes and Company shall return such land to Government without any compensation. Further the State Government shall have the power to resume any such land required for its own use and/or any public purposes and Company shall return such land to Government without any compensation. In such resumption, however. Government will give due consideration to the interest of the lessee Company also. The State being the paramount owner of the land leased out to the Company the provisions of the Bihar public Land Encroachment Act will apply to such lands also and for the purposes of prevention and removal or regularization of encroachments on lands an efficacious procedure will be set up by the Government in consultation with the Company. It is further contended that subsequently further agreement was entered into between the Company and the State of Bihar and a deed of lease was registered on 1.5.1985. In the said agreement, it is asserted that, certain acres of lands were leased out by the Company on 22.6.1970 to different parties such as, other industrial undertakings, individuals, societies and associations etc. The Schedule V of the agreement deals with residuary vacant lands and the lands in dispute are comprised in Schedule IV and V. Argument of Mr. Mahto is that from the various show causes filed by the alleged contemnors it would be evident that while Mr. Gorelal Yadav, the then Deputy Commissioner, took all possible steps in order to implement the various orders of this Court and pursuant thereto some houses had already been demolished, the matter took a turn and, as such, no question for contempt survives. According to him, the circumstances which compelled the concerned opposite parties to stay their hands, have been explained in the show causes which will reveal that implementation of the order of the S.D.M. Passed in a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. as well as of this Court subsequent thereto, would have resulted in mass killing in the concerned Basti and mainly for this reason the State Authorities repeatedly prayed before this Court as well as the Supreme Court to resolve the matter. 5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G.P.I., appearing on behalf of the State contended that admittedly during the pendency of this matter the whole lease? 5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned G.P.I., appearing on behalf of the State contended that admittedly during the pendency of this matter the whole lease? of the Company expired on 31.12.1995 and the Company was admittedly not in possession of the lands in question, neither there was any proposal by the Company for establishment of any factory, production process or for providing amenities etc. Being paramount owner of the lands in view of the provisions stipulated in the lease deed; the State Government, however, suggested the Company for Sub-leasing the plots in question in favour of different persons for the purpose of regularizing encroachment on the lands. However, the said proposal was not accepted by the Company and, as such, taking into consideration the enquiry report of the Chief Secretary dated 16.7.1992 to the effect that if any steps for removing encroachment is taken, police firings have to be resorted as a result of which many innocent persons might have to be killed. It was also suggested by the Chief Secretary in view of the legal opinion that considering serious consequences of implementing the order of the S.D.M. the lands in question itself be resumed and be settled with the persons who had built their houses on the encroached lands. Mr. Shivnath suggested that as the disputed lands already been resumed by the State, these should be excluded from the lease deed which is to be entered in between the Company and the State Government. Referring to supplementary show cause filed on behalf on the State of Bihar Mr. Shivnath submits that the Joint Secretary of the Revenue and Lands Reforms Department, has explained the circumstances chronologically and according to him, during the period when the order was passed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the vesting of entire Tisco area in the State of Bihar was under challenge and subsequently the Bihar Lands Reforms Act, 1950 was amended in 1972 as a result of which the area in dispute vested in the State. In 1984 an agreement was entered into between the State Government and the Tisco leasing out the area to Tisco which was to expire on 31.12.1995. After expiry of the said period, the matter of renewal of the lease is under active consideration of the State Government. In 1984 an agreement was entered into between the State Government and the Tisco leasing out the area to Tisco which was to expire on 31.12.1995. After expiry of the said period, the matter of renewal of the lease is under active consideration of the State Government. The Tisco in its application for renewal of the lease itself requested for exclusion of encroached Basti from the resumed lease measuring an area of about 1600 acres but Namda Basti was not included in the said list. Though referring to order dated 16.8.1990 passed by the S.D.M. Dalbhum in the aforesaid criminal proceeding, at petition was filed before the Court by Tisco in the instant contempt application praying therein to put the petitioner in possession of the land declared to be theirs but the real fact is that in 1990 the land in question had already vested in the State of Bihar by virtue of amendment in the Bihar Lands Reforms Act. However, this Court in the said Cr. Writ Petition No. 39/90 (R) directed the S.D.M. to pass final order and to take steps for delivery of possession to Tisco. When this order could not be complied with, instant contempt petition was filed. This Court directed the 3rd Addl. Sub-Judge to send the records to S.D.M. and the S.D.M. directed the Officer in-charge, Golmuri Police Station on 16.8.1990 to restore possession of lands to Tisco. The officer in-charge, facing difficulties in complying with the said order, expressed his view that unless certain Company of armed force was deputed the order cannot be complied with. On the prayer made by the petitioner, the State of Bihar and other officers were impleaded as respondents and it was further directed to comply with the order within ten days. The Deputy Commissioner and the S.P. were directed to carry out the order dated 16.5.1992 phase by phase and submit a reuort to the Court. Pursuant to the said order an encroachment drive was started and 27 pucca houses were demolished. However, it was found that there was serious resistence and as a result of which police force and Magistrate had to take recourse to lathi charge and tearing gas. As the matter was also highly debated in the Legislative Assembly, the State Government, made a statement that assumption of the land was under consideration. 6. However, it was found that there was serious resistence and as a result of which police force and Magistrate had to take recourse to lathi charge and tearing gas. As the matter was also highly debated in the Legislative Assembly, the State Government, made a statement that assumption of the land was under consideration. 6. The Supreme Court being moved by the State Government, three months time was granted by the Apex Court to work out the implementation. A request was made to Tisco to consider the Sub-leasing of the land to the people residing there for years but the said request was turned down by making alternative offer to the State Government for exchange of the said land. That offer was duly considered by the Government and ultimately, considering the fact that on the concerned land over 200 houses alongwith Temple, Gurudwara and Mosque are in existence since 1968-69 and several communities were residing there, the State Government decided in April, 1993 to resume the land in the public interest. The power and jurisdiction of the State Government to resume the land in view of the lease deed dated 1.8.1985 without any compensation to be paid to the leasee is not under challenge. It is stated that under the lease deed the Tisco was entitled to use the [and for factory, production process, providing civic amenities to the town and houses facilities to the employees of the Company but admittedly the Tisco. was not in possession of the land in question nor there was any proposal by the Company for establishment of any factory etc. 7. The prevailing circumstances led to serious repercussion and commotion not only among the residents of Jamshedpur but also among the political parties which ultimately, led the State Government to issue a notification for resumption o; the land measuring an area of about 8.1593 acres of Namda Basti at Jamshedpur. However, Tisco has impugned the said order of resumption in CWJC No. 4185/93 (R) which is still pending for admission. However, on 15.10.1993 last opportunity was given to the respondents to carry out the order of the High Court finally within the time limit. The State Government moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 2445/93 and an interim order of stay was granted staying further proceeding of the contempt matter till 26.11.1993. However, on 15.10.1993 last opportunity was given to the respondents to carry out the order of the High Court finally within the time limit. The State Government moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 2445/93 and an interim order of stay was granted staying further proceeding of the contempt matter till 26.11.1993. Ultimately the said S.L.P. was finally disposed of on 11.2.1995 with a direction that the High Court, while considering the matter, will take the events that had followed, into consideration. A copy of the order of the Supreme Court date 11.2.1995 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit. Lastly it is asserted by the deponent that even the lease period under the said lease duied 1.8.1985 has expired on 31.12.1995 and thus the subsequent events disentitled the Tisco for renewal. Even according to Class VII and of Schedule-D of the lease deed contemplates that the lands not resumed by the Government would be only the subject matter of renewal. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is stated on behalf of the State that at present the Tisco has no subsisting right over the area under dispute and if in further the Government feels of granting fresh lease to Tisco including the aforesaid land in dispute, the State Government shall abide by the direction/order issued from time to time by the High Court in the instant contempt application. 9. From the chain of events discussed above, it is evident that when the order of the S.D.M. Dalbhum passed under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. was not complied with by the opposite parties, the petitioner had to move this Court, in spite of repeated directions, the possession of the disputed land was not restored to Tisco and, as such, the instant contempt application was filed. This Court from time to time, considering the facts and circumstances, directed the opposite parties to comply with the order and ultimately on 15.10.1993 this Court allowed last chance to the opposite parties to carry out the order of the Court. It was observed "if within that time the Courts order is not finally complied with or any other arrangement is made, then we shall take the same into consideration while passing our final order." As because this order was impugned before the Supreme Court, the matter was adjourned from time to time. It was observed "if within that time the Courts order is not finally complied with or any other arrangement is made, then we shall take the same into consideration while passing our final order." As because this order was impugned before the Supreme Court, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately on 18.3.1996 this Court wanted to close up the contempt proceeding by passing final order. Notices were issued to rest of the opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt and, it was, inter alia observed that if the contemners are found guilty, they should be suitably dealt with and the contempt petition may be disposed of. The case was adjourned again and it was directed that the instant application would be heard alongwith CWJC Nos. 1637, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629 and 1632 of 1992 (R).This order was passed on 15.5.1996 and 16.5.1996 but the office reported that CWJC Nos. 1626, 1627 and 1629 of 1992 (R) were disposed of on 13.12.1994 and CWJC Nos. 1628, 1632 and 1637 of 1992 (R) were disposed of on 9.4.1993. This is how the instant application was placed for hearing on admission matter. 10. As already noted above, against the order dated 15.10.1993 passed in this case the State of Bihar moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 2445/93 and the Apex Court on 11.12.1995, disposed of the same by directing as follows: This petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.1993.That order merely requires the petitioner to explain whether they have carried out the order of the Court and if not whether there is valid explanation in the behalf. We, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain but we would like to clarify that the High Court will; while considering this matter, take the events that have followed, into consideration and dispose of the application in accordance with law. The petition will stand disposed of accordingly. From the order of the Supreme Court it is clear that their lordships directed this Court to take the subsequent events into consideration and to dispose of the application in accordance with law. 11. Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly contended that after expiry of the lease in the year, 1995 the matter is still pending before the State Government and as yet no final decision has been taken. 11. Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly contended that after expiry of the lease in the year, 1995 the matter is still pending before the State Government and as yet no final decision has been taken. The fact that the State Government issued a notification for resumption of the land in question of Namda Basti against which the petitioner has moved this Court in CWJC No. 4185/915 (R) but the same is yet to be disposed of is not controverted. Moreover, the petitioner admittedly did not file any rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit filed en behalf of the State of Bihar on 13.5.1996 about which we have silready discussed above. 12. From the aforesaid discussions it is amply clear that though this Court repeatedly directed the concerned opposite parties to comply with the order of the learned S.D.M. passed under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. but some subsequent events took place for which the opposite parties could not implement the orders in spite of their best efforts-. The opposite parties admittedly, in order to comply with the order, took sincere steps for removing the encroachment and, as a matter of fact, some houses were demolished but these actions of the opposite parties were resisted by the residents of Namda Basti. as a result of which police force had to be deployed and some lathi charges and use of tear gas were resorted to. Even when these steps by the opposite parties were strongly resisted, it was apprehended that without taking drastic action for firing the encroachment could not be removed. This fact led the State Government to consider as to whether after expiry of the lease of Tisco, lease should be renewed with Tisco or not or whether this land should be resumed. After due deliberation the State Government in order to avoid loss of lives and destruction of properties of the residents of Namda Basti, ultimately resumed the lands in question. Even though the Tisco has moved this Court challenging the order of resumption as admitted by the parties, no final order has been passed in the said application as yet and, as such, it will be deemed that at present Tisco is not a leasee in respect of the iands of Namda Basti. 13. While agreeing with Mr. Even though the Tisco has moved this Court challenging the order of resumption as admitted by the parties, no final order has been passed in the said application as yet and, as such, it will be deemed that at present Tisco is not a leasee in respect of the iands of Namda Basti. 13. While agreeing with Mr. Verma that this Court from time to time directed the opposite parties to restore possession of the land to Tisco and that was not complied with, we are of the opinion that it would be unjustified to hold that the opposite parities did not take any step to comply with the order with all sincerity. 14. From the various statements made in the counter affidavit/show cause it appears that all possible steps were actually taken by the opposite parties but due to unavoidable circumstances and compelling situations prevailing, the orders of this Court could not be given effect to in spite of best efforts of the opposite parties. In our view, taking into consideration the undisputed subsequent events, it cannot be said that the opposite parties deliberately and willfully neglected to obey the orders of this Court. 15. In the case of Mohd. Iqubal Khanday V/s. Abdul Majid Rather reported in, where the opposite parties/appellants expressed genuine difficulties with regard to implementation of the order of the High Court under the circumstances stated therein, their lordships were of the opinion that: In such a situation the insistence of the Courts on implementation may not square with realities of the situation and the practicability of implementation of the Courts direction. In our considered view, hooking a party to contempt proceedings and enforcing obedience to such orders hardly lends credence to judicial process and authority; more so, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, of the case. The Court must always be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same time it will be inadvisable to require compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the instance of the person proceeding against for contempt. Practically, what the Court by means of the contempt proceedings seeks is an execution which cannot meet with our approval. 16. Practically, what the Court by means of the contempt proceedings seeks is an execution which cannot meet with our approval. 16. While respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views of their lordships, we are of the opinion that this Court also must be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same time should not keep its eyes closed to the prevailing circumstances. 17. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that though the orders of this Court were not complied with by the opposite parties but definitely genuine steps were taken for implementation of the same and, as such, the opposite parties cannot be held guilty of contempt. 18. In the result, we find no merit in this application which is, accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.