V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS common order shall dispose of w. P. No. 3529 of 2000 and C. C. No. 274 of 2000 as they are interrelated. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 8. 30 guntas in S. No. 133/aa of Potireddipalli Village. Having regard to perceived convenience the petitioner s father occupied an extent of 60 Sq. Yards in S. No. 130/2 in the adjacent government porambok land. The total extent of the land in S. No. 130/2 is Ac. 0. 36 guntas. According to the petitioner his father raised a small shed with two rooms and has been living there since 1965. Potireddipalli Gram Panchayat is also levying and collecting property tax duly assigning a number to the said house being h. No. 3-52. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), sixth respondent herein, initiated proceedings under the provisions of andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 ( the Act for brevity) and issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act on 5-12-1997 alleging that the petitioner s father has encroached on to Government land and is required to show-cause as to why encroachment be not removed as the same is allegedly objectionable. The petitioner s father set up adverse possession and requested the MRO to drop the proceedings. After that, no action was taken by the revenue officials under the Act. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that on 26-2-2000 the third respondent herein summoned the petitioner to the Police station and ordered him to vacate the house bearing No. 3-52 to enable the Police department to take over the same for utilisation as Traffic Police Station. When respondents 2 and 3 have also requested the first respondent to erect a compound wall encircling the petitioner s house so as to deny ingress and egress to him and when the first respondent dumped construction material near the site, the petitioner filed the writ Petition on 1-3-2000. This Court admitted the Writ Petition on 3-3-2000 and by order of even date in W. P. M. P. No. 4625 of 2000 restrained the respondents in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house by the petitioner and also from raising/ constructing compound wall surrounding the above house. This Court admitted the Writ Petition on 3-3-2000 and by order of even date in W. P. M. P. No. 4625 of 2000 restrained the respondents in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house by the petitioner and also from raising/ constructing compound wall surrounding the above house. Initially the injunction was granted for a period of four weeks, which was later extended until further orders by order dt. 7-4-2000. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 274 of 2000 on 8-3-2000 inter alia alleging that though the order of this Court dt. 3-3-2000 was duly communicated orally on 4-3-2000 and by way of two Telegrams: one issued at 11. 49 hours and another issued at 16. 19 hours on 5-3-2000 the respondents forcibly removed the petitioner and his family members at 3. 00 p. m. and continued the construction of compound wall till 9-3-2000. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction and removing the petitioner in gross disobedience of the order of injunction granted by this Court on 3-3-2000 amounts to contempt. ( 3 ) THOUGH the resp ondents have not filed counter-affidavits in the main Writ petition all of them have filed elaborate counter-affidavits in the Contempt Case and as requested by the learned respective government Pleaders these counter-affidavits are being treated as counter-affidavits in the main Writ petition also. ( 4 ) ALL the respondents 1 to 3 in their individual counters have stated that on a request made by the Superintendent of police, District Collector, Medak by proceedings dt. 5-11-1997 directed transfer of an extent of Ac. 0. 36 guntas of land in s. No. 130/2 to the Police Department for construction of Police Station (Rural) building, that in obedience thereto the sixth respondent issued orders on 13-11-1997 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to handover possession of the land in s. No. 130/2 and accordingly under panchanama dt. 3-12-1997 the entire land in s. No. 130/2 admeasuring Ac. 0. 32 guntas was handed over to the Inspector of Police, sangareddy. 3-12-1997 the entire land in s. No. 130/2 admeasuring Ac. 0. 32 guntas was handed over to the Inspector of Police, sangareddy. They also contend that the petitioner was never in possession of the land at least from the date when the land was handed over to the Police Department, that the house allegedly bearing No. 3-52 was available during the construction of police station has been under the control and possession of the Police Department. They denied all other allegations regarding construction till 9-3-2000. Though there are minor inconsistencies with regard to the nature of the shed in question as well as possession, by and large the separate counters filed by respondents 1 to 3 deny the allegations made in the Contempt Case. They also aver that after coming to know of the order passed by this Court on 3-3-2000, the contractor, respondent No. 4 herein was directed to stop the construction. It is pertinent to notice that as per the version of the first respondent he instructed the assistant Executive Engineer on 6-3-2000 to stop the work whereas the third respondent, Sub- Inspector of Police, states in his counter that after receipt of the orders on 5-3-2000 he directed the first respondent to stop the work. Peculiarly, the fourth respondent states that the Assistant executive Engineer informed him about the passing of the orders on 5-3-2000 and on coming to know of this the work was stopped. When the work was stopped in obedience to the orders of this Court dated 3-3-2000 remains a matter, on which there is no unanimity among respondents 1 to 3. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed reply affidavit and also enclosed third party affidavits. The third party affidavits filed by Gaddam ramaiah. Sankari Raji Reddy and Manne radhaiah show that the fourth respondent, who was engaged by the Village Level committee in the construction of compound wall continued to construct the same around petitioner s house till 9-3-2000. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed reply affidavit and also enclosed third party affidavits. The third party affidavits filed by Gaddam ramaiah. Sankari Raji Reddy and Manne radhaiah show that the fourth respondent, who was engaged by the Village Level committee in the construction of compound wall continued to construct the same around petitioner s house till 9-3-2000. The inconsistency in the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 separately in juxtaposition with the third party affidavits, which are not seriously disputed by the respondents, thus, gives an indication that the fourth respondent proceeded with the construction till 9-3-2000 and his version that on being informed by the Assistant executive Engineer on 5-3-2000 he stopped the work is belied by the statement of the deputy Executive Engineer, the superior officer, who states that he directed the assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat raj, only on 6-3-2000 after receiving the copy of the order. In the light of this, it is not possible to believe third respondent that on 5-3-2000 he directed the fourth respondent to stop the work. Having regard to the various statements and sworn statement of villagers, it is reasonable to infer that the construction of compound wall in question was proceeded withup to 9-3-2000, which would certainly amount to disobedience of the orders of this Court. The finding is accordingly recorded. ( 6 ) THE next question is whether the respondents 1 to 3 and 4 have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. This aspect requires examination of two questions; whether the entire land of ac. 0. 36 guntas in S. No. 130/2 was proposed to be handed over to the Police department on 3-12-1997 for construction of police Station? and, whether as on the date of filing the Writ Petition on 1-3-2000 the petitioner was in possession of the house bearing S. No. 130/2 and whether he was dispossessed forcibly? ( 7 ) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for Home Department as well as panchayat Raj, I have gone through the panchanama dt. 3-12-1997 and the field map of S. Nos. 129, 130/1 and 130/2 abutting National Highway No. 9 which is annexed to the panchanama. The officer handing over possession and taking over possession on behalf of the Police department is same. In the index to the field map only Ac. 0. 3-12-1997 and the field map of S. Nos. 129, 130/1 and 130/2 abutting National Highway No. 9 which is annexed to the panchanama. The officer handing over possession and taking over possession on behalf of the Police department is same. In the index to the field map only Ac. 0. 35 guntas of land in s. No. 130/2 is shown as the land proposed for Police Station (Rural) Sangareddy and the land in extent of 60 Sq. Yards is described as motor shed. The panchanama also refers to an extent of Ac. 0. 01 gunta land, which is allegedly occupied by ramamma Temple. Therefore, though the request made by the Superintendent of police is for transfer of an extent of Ac. 0. 36 guntas land, what was handed over to the police Department is Ac. 0. 35 guntas of land in S. No. 130/2. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act on 5-12-1997 and the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of potireddipalli Gram Panchayat on 28-2-2000, which support the contention that the petitioner was in possession of the shed raised on the land admeasuring 60 Sq. Yards and he was forcibly evicted. The allegation is denied by all the respondents. The learned Government pleaders contend that from 3-12-1997 the entire land is in possession of the Police department and in view of this, the question of evicting the petitioner forcibly on 5-3-2000 after this Court passed an injunction order cannot be believed. On the question of the extent of land transferred to police Department, I have already held that what was handed over to Police department is Ac. 0. 35 guntas for construction of Police Station (Rural) and therefore I must hold that the petitioner was in possession of the property in question which is evidenced by the certificate issued by the Sarpanch. Be it noted that though the certificate of Sarpanch is placed before this court, no objection is taken for the same nor it is denied by the respondents. Respondents 1 to 3 state that with effect from 3-12-1997 the entire land of Ac. 0. 36 guntas is in possession of the Police department. But the fourth respondent nowhere in the counter states that the petitioner is not living in the property. Respondents 1 to 3 state that with effect from 3-12-1997 the entire land of Ac. 0. 36 guntas is in possession of the Police department. But the fourth respondent nowhere in the counter states that the petitioner is not living in the property. He only states that he entered into agreement on 20-1-2000 for construction of compound wall of the Police Station, started work in third week of February, 2000 and completed the construction of basement and 50% of the work by the date when the Assistant executive Engineer stopped the work. The other allegations made by the petitioner as to his residence H. No. 3-52 are not specifically denied nor adverted to. The second respondent, who is responsible officer, states that there is one shed in an extent of 60 Sq. yards and one Neem tree and Lord Rama s idol in an extent of ac. 0. 01 guntas and that the Police department has taken possession of Ac. 0. 35 guntas only along with the shed. This statement is belied by the field map showing land in S. Nos. 129, 130/aa and 130/2 under which only an extent of ac. 0. 35 guntas was handed over to the police Department. This statement coupled with the land encroachment notice dated 5-12-1997 as well as the third party affidavits and the certificate issued by the sarpanch would show that the petitioner is actually in possession of the property and that he was forcibly evicted by the Police on 5-3-2000. The fact that though the land was handed over possession on 3-12-1997 the police Department could complete construction only in July, 1999 would also supports the view of the petitioner that he was in possession as on the date of filing the writ Petition. ( 9 ) AS there is some uncertainty with regard to the exact extent taken possession by the Police Department on 3-12-1997 and though the land was taken over possession, the shed was not demolished and allowed to remain as it is are circumstances which would not call for any proceedings for the alleged contempt having regard to section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this factual matrix, however, the petitioner was issued a notice under section 7 of the Act which presupposes that he is in possession. Further, Sarpanch certifies possession as on the date of filing the Writ Petition. In this factual matrix, however, the petitioner was issued a notice under section 7 of the Act which presupposes that he is in possession. Further, Sarpanch certifies possession as on the date of filing the Writ Petition. Hence, petitioner should not be relegated to other proceedings to get back his possession. ( 10 ) IN exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution this Court can order redelivery of possession in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was dispossessed illegally. This principle is well-settled. ( 11 ) HIS Lordship Justice Syed Shah mohammed Quadri, (as he then was) considered this question in m. Suryanarayana vs. Gram Panchayat committee. In the said case the petitioners who were inducted as lessees were forcibly evicted after the expiry of the lease without recourse to law. A Writ Petition was filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondent-Gram Panchayat is illegal and for further direction to the respondent to account for the stocks taken from the shops when the petitioners were forcibly evicted. His Lordship repelled the contention of the government that such a relief cannot be granted under Article 226 of the constitution held as under. It therefore, follows that the impugned action of the respondent in forcibly entering upon the premises, viz. , the three shops which were in occupation of the petitioners is without any authority of law, as such it is illegal and arbitrary. If the respondent intends to get the petitioners evicted from the shops in question, it is bound to have recourse to the appropriate authority to have the tenants evicted in accordance with law. Ours is a country governed by rule of Law which applies to the State and the citizens alike. The respondent. State within the meaning of Article 12 cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and high-handedly according to its whims and fancies like an autocratic state and resist the action brought under Article 226 on the ground that its illegal arbitrary and unauthorised action cannot be questioned by the petitioners in proceedings under article 226 without first establishing their rights. It would be unjust to allow the respondent to retain the benefits of illegal and unauthorised action and ill-gotten possession. It should restore the possession of shops and the goods taken from the shops to the petitioners. It would be unjust to allow the respondent to retain the benefits of illegal and unauthorised action and ill-gotten possession. It should restore the possession of shops and the goods taken from the shops to the petitioners. (Emphasis supplied) ( 12 ) IN M. Chinnammai vs. District collector, Nellore this Court (Per s. R. Nayak, J) came to the following conclusion. It is well settled and repeatedly reiterated by the Courts that whenever public authorities do something adverse to the interest of persons or citizens their action should be traceable to an authority granted by the Constitution or other public law enactment. The District Collector, I should say that in the present case acted as a despot without bothering himself about public law requirement and directed his subordinates to take over the land pending acquisition of the land. and issued a Mandamus to the Collector to handover vacant possession of the subject land to the petitioner, who was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. ( 13 ) WHILE exercising contempt jurisdiction either under Article 215 or under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of court Act, whether this Court is competent to pass incidental and ancillary direction in the interest of justice? In Site Ram Sahu vs. Lal Pari Devi the Supreme Court was dealing with contempt petition. The complaint was that though the eviction order was stayed the petitioner was evicted and the premises was demolished. The demolition was sought to be justified inter alia on the ground that in view of earthquake the building became unsafe and after obtaining orders of the local authority the building was demolished. The justification of the respondents did not appeal to the Supreme Court which came to the conclusion that the respondents committed contempt. However, taking a lenient view the Supreme Court directed the respondents to reconstruct the portion of the building and give it to the petitioner within six months by duly inducting him afresh for a period of three years. In Delhi development Authority vs. Skipper construction Co. (P) Ltd. the Supreme Court referred to various judgments touching upon the subject and ruled: the principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well- settled. In Mohd. In Delhi development Authority vs. Skipper construction Co. (P) Ltd. the Supreme Court referred to various judgments touching upon the subject and ruled: the principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well- settled. In Mohd. Idris vs. R. J. Babuji (1985) 1 SCR 598 = ( AIR 1984 SC 1826 ) this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the provisions of section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act the respondents 1 to 3 and 4 cannot be held to have "wilfully disobeyed" the orders of the Court. The Court only expresses hope that in future respondents 1 to 3 would be more careful. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance in government of A. P. vs. Thummala Krishna rao has rightly contended that when a citizen sets up adverse possession by virtue of long possession, Government cannot resort to the provisions of the Act and has to necessarily seek a declaration in the Court having competent civil jurisdiction. There cannot be any dispute on this. ( 15 ) IN the result, the Contempt Case is closed duly discharging the rule. The Writ petition is allowed directing that the respondents 1 to 3 and 6 shall forthwith allow the petitioner to occupy the tin-roofed shed bearing H. No. 3-52 in S. No. 130/2 of pothireddipalli village, Sangareddy mandal, Medak District duly allowing him proper ingress and egress. Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 are also directed not to interfere with possession of the petitioner thereafter. However, it is open to the sixth respondent to take appropriate necessary action under law. There shall be no order as to costs.