JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-contemn Ors. 2. By filing this petition, the Petitioner has sought for drawing up contempt proceeding against the Respondents, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the directions given in the order dated 16.11.2010, passed in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010. 3. Brief facts, as pleaded by the Petitioner, are as follows: The Petitioner instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order for allotment of land in her favour, situated at Belonia, Mouja-Sarashima, Sarashima Tehshil Kachari, C.S. Plot No. 2457, in Khatian No. 1734, as per the existing rules, as on 10.01.2003, in terms of the provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to, in short, as the 'TLR and LR Act, 1960). In WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, the State of Tripura was made as party Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 1 of this contempt petition was made as party Respondent No. 2 as well as Respondent No. 2 of this contempt petition was made as party Respondent No. 3. 4. The Petitioner is in possession of a parcel of land as aforesaid under Khatian No. 1734 since 1985. However, at the relevant time, the land in question, was recorded in the name of one Sri Sunil Chandra Pal, as allottee. As the Petitioner was in possession of the land, she initiated a proceeding before the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, for reviewing of the allotment order, made in the name of Sri Sunil Chandra Pal, and also prayed for allotment of the aforesaid land in her favour, as per provision of Section 96(1) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. 5. The aforesaid application, submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, was registered as Case No. 82/REV/02, under Section 96(1) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 and the same was disposed of by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur on 10.01.2033, with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia, to review the allotment order made in favour of Sri Sunil Chandra Pal. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia did not review the allotment order as directed by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura. 6. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, once again approached, the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur for redressal of her grievances. However, this time after hearing the case, the Additional District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura passed an order dated 10.03.2005, whereby the case was returned back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Revenue Officer), Belonia, for taking immediate action by way of cancellation of the earlier allotment order as made in favour of Sri Sunil Chandra Pal and for issuing fresh allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, in terms of the order dated 10.01.2003 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura. It would be pertinent to depict herein below the relevant extracts of the orders passed by the District Magistrate and Collector and Additional District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, which read as follows: Government of Tripura Office of the District Magistrate and Collector South Tripura: Udaipur No. 13(2)/DM/S/REV/2001/59 Dated, the 10th January, 2003 To The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia: South Tripura. Subject: Permission for review the allotment order under Section 96(1) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. Sir, Permission for review and cancellation of allotment Order Under Section -96(1) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 in connection with case No. 82/REV/02 is accorded from my end. This has a reference to your Letter No. 5(2-B)/SDM/BLN/REV/02/693 dated, 26th September, 2002. For information and necessary action. Sd/- (M. Naga Raju) District Magistrate and Collector South Tripura, Udaipur ORDER Party namely Smt. Maya Chakraborty, W/O, Kanti Chakraborty, South Mirzapur, CONT.CAS(C) No. 08 of 2011 Page 5 of 29 Sarashima, Belonia appeared but 2nd party Sri Sunil Ch. Paul, S/O, Har Kumar Paul of Sarashima, Belonia has not appeared without any step on 10-03-05 at 11 AM. Heard the case and gone through the relevant records in respect of case No. 82/REV/02. The SDM, Belonia had been ordered vide order No. 13(2)/DM/S/REV/2001/59 dated 10th January, 2003 to review the allotment order Under Section 96(1) of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. After issuing such order only hearing had been made on 31-12-03 by the then SDM, Sri No. Barman, wherein it was written that though the 2nd party did not turn up before the SDM, but it had been reflected both the party appeared. After issuing such order only hearing had been made on 31-12-03 by the then SDM, Sri No. Barman, wherein it was written that though the 2nd party did not turn up before the SDM, but it had been reflected both the party appeared. It transpired that such type of negligence in recording on such order without appearing the 2nd party leads to gross offensive as per TLR and LR Act, 1960. Even, the matter had already been inordinate delayed. However, in reviewing the case and finding the gravity of the case the same is hereby returned back to SDM, Belonia for taking immediate action by way of cancellation of earlier allotment order as made in favour of Sri Sunil Ch. Paul, S/O Har Kumar Paul of Sarashima and arrange to issue fresh allotment order in favour of Smt. Maya Chakraborty, W/O, Kanti Chakraborty of South Mirzapur, Sarashima, Belonia Sub-Division in terms of order of the DM(S) referred above. Sd/- 10-03-2005 (D.C. DEBBARMA) Addl. District Magistrate and Collector Udaipur: South Tripura 7. As an outcome of the order dated 10.03.2005, on 22.09.2005, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Revenue Officer), Belonia Sub-Division cancelled the allotment order made in favour of Sri Sunil Ch. Paul and directed the Revenue Inspector, Belonia to make necessary corrections of records of rights. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia, South Tripura reads as follows: 22.09.2005. Perused the case records in respect of case No. 82/Rev/02. Permission for review and cancellation of allotment order Under Section96(1) of TLR and LR Act,1960 in connection with case No. 82/Rev/02 was accorded to SDM Belonia by DM and Collector(South) vide letter No. 13(2)/DM/S/REV/2001/59 dated 10th January, 2003. Further an order dated 10th March,2005 has been passed by ADM and Collector(South) in case No. 1/REV/2005 communicated vide letter No. F.1(2)-Sr. Dy-NAG/DM/S Misc/2005/216 dated 11th March, 2005 to cancel the previous allotment proposal made in the name of Sunil Ch. Paul. A Notice dated 08-04-2005 was issued on Sunil Ch. Paul S/O Hara Kumar Paul to show cause why the allotment order shall not be cancelled. As per his written statement submitted dated 28th April 2005 he accepts that he allowed Kanti Chakraborty and Nilu Chakaraborty to stay in the allotted land. Further LA proposal for extension of Radio station Belonia shows prepared in 1991 show Maya Chakraborty as forceful occupier. As per his written statement submitted dated 28th April 2005 he accepts that he allowed Kanti Chakraborty and Nilu Chakaraborty to stay in the allotted land. Further LA proposal for extension of Radio station Belonia shows prepared in 1991 show Maya Chakraborty as forceful occupier. Field enquiry of RI, Belonia, Tehsilder Sarashima shows that since 1985 Sunil Chandra Pal is not in possession of said land. Further there is an unregistered No claimant deed executed by Sunil Ch. Pal in favour of Nilu Chakraborty vide which he has relinquished his claim on the said plot. But as per land allotment Rules 1980 land allotted under Sub-Section 1 of Section 14 is subject to certain conditions. As per Section 12(1) of allotment of land rules(1980) the land is heritable but not alienable without the consent of the DM and Collector(S) granted on the recommendation of the Advisory committee that may be set up by the Government. Further Section 12(6) says that the allotment will be liable to be cancelled if land is not used for the purpose for which it is allotted. So, Sunil Ch. Pal S/O Har Kumar Pal has violated conditions of allotment Under Section 14(1) of TLR and LR Act. So, his allotment is cancelled as per provisions of Section 12(6) of allotment of land rules (1980) in the suit land. Further R/I Belonia is asked to make necessary correction of ROR as per rules. DESCRIPTION of THE ALLOTTED LAND TO BE CANCELLED Name of LR: Sarashima C.S. Plot No. 2457 Name of Mouja: sarashima Area: 0.17 acres Khatian No: 1734 Classification: Tilla (Bastu) Sd/- 22.09.2005 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura Copy to: 1. The RI Belonia for making corrections in ROR 2. Sunil Ch. Pal S/O Har Kumar Pal, Agartala. 8. It has been stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Revenue Officer), Belonia, in utter disregard to the order passed by the higher forum, did not pass any order regarding fresh allotment in favour of the Petitioner, in terms of the order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, till date. 9. 8. It has been stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Revenue Officer), Belonia, in utter disregard to the order passed by the higher forum, did not pass any order regarding fresh allotment in favour of the Petitioner, in terms of the order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, till date. 9. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, which was disposed of on 16.11.2010, directing the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia to complete the process of allotment, in terms of the direction issued by the Additional District Magistrate and Collector, Udaipur, South Tripura, in accordance with law. The relevant extracts of the order passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, is reproduced herein below: 16.11.2010 Heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Govt. Advocate, who entered appearance on behalf of the State-respondents. As agreed to by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the Motion stage. The grievance of the writ Petitioner is that, in spite of forwarding the matter to the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 1, for making enquiry in respect of the allotment of land to the writ Petitioner and for submitting allotment proposal as per Rules, the Respondent No. 3 has not taken any action since 10.01.2003. Vide order, dated 10.03.2005(Annexure-P.3), the learned Addl. District Magistrate and Collector, Udaipur, South Tripura, passed the following order: "However, in reviewing the case and finding the gravity of the case the same is hereby returned back to SDM, Belonia for taking immediate action by way of cancellation of earlier allotment order as made in favour of Sri Sunil Ch. Paul, S/O Har Kumar Paul of Sarashima and arrange to issue fresh allotment order in favour of Smt. Maya Chakraborty, W/O, Kanti Chakraborty of South Mirzapur, Sarashima, Belonia Sub-Division in terms of order of the DM(S) referred above." After receipt of the aforesaid order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, South Triura, by his order, dated 22.09.2005, passed in Case No. 82/REV/02, cancelled the allotment order made in favour of Sri Sunil Chandra Paul and directed the Revenue Inspector, Belonia to make necessary correction of Record of Right as per Rules. The writ Petitioner's contention is that, fresh allotment order in favour of Smti Maya Chakraborty, as directed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate and Collector, Udaipur, South Tripura, by his order, dated 10.03.2005, has not been made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to complete the process of allotment as per direction made by the learned Addl. District Magistrate and Collector, Udaipur, South Tripura, according to law. It is also directed that the entire process be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Govt. Advocate during the course of the day. 10. On perusal of the order aforesaid it appears that a direction was issued, more particularly, to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to complete the entire process within a period of three months, from 16.11.2010. The Petitioner has stated that even in spite of receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Court, the Respondents did not comply with the directions, thereby the Petitioner was compelled to file this petition for drawing up contempt proceeding. 11. In response to the contempt proceedings, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed counter affidavit, explaining the delay in compliance of the order passed by this Court and submitted that the Respondents were earnestly working on processing the matter of allotment as per rules, by complying with the stages of the process and completed the same on 20.06.2011. It has further been stated by the Respondents that even in spite of working with due diligence, they could not complete the process within the time allotted by this Court, for which they humbly and faithfully tendered unqualified apology and submitted that the Respondents never disobeyed the order of the Court willfully and deliberately. The compliance order vide No. F.6(28)/SDM/BLN/SUR/2006/10040 dated 20.06.2011, issued by Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia Sub-Division, South Tripura, reads as follows: Government of Tripura Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Belonia, South Tripura No. F.6(28)/SDM/BLN/SUR/2006/10040 dated, the 20.06.2011 ALLOTMENT ORDER This order of allotment is issued as per approval of Revenue Department, Govt. The compliance order vide No. F.6(28)/SDM/BLN/SUR/2006/10040 dated 20.06.2011, issued by Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia Sub-Division, South Tripura, reads as follows: Government of Tripura Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Belonia, South Tripura No. F.6(28)/SDM/BLN/SUR/2006/10040 dated, the 20.06.2011 ALLOTMENT ORDER This order of allotment is issued as per approval of Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura vide DM(S) office order No. F.13(14)-DM/S/REV/2010/1021 dated 20.06.2011 in compliance with the Rule 11(a), (b) and Rule 9 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 and in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 16.11.2010 in connection with the case No. W.P.(C) No. 508 of 2010. Land described in the schedule below is allotted to Smti Maya Chakraborty W/O, Kanti Chakraborty and Sri Kanti Chakraborty S/O, Bhupendra Chakraborty of village South Mirjapur P.O. Belonia of District South Tripura for the purpose of homestead land under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 subject to the following conditions namely: (1) The land is heritable but not alienable without the written consent of the Collector: Provided that the land may be mortgaged to the Government, a co-operative society or a bank or such other institution as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State Government, from time to time. Explanation: The expression 'bank' shall have the same meaning as assigned to it by the explanation under Section 109 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. (2) The allottee on giving three months notice before the end or the agricultural year and on payment of all Government dues in respect of the allotted land up to the in of the said agricultural year may surrender the land allotted to them. On such surrender being made, the land shall revert to the Government. (3) In case the allottee is a co-operative farming society and the registration of such society is cancelled within ten years from the date of allotment, the land allotted to such society shall thereupon be deemed to have been resumed by the Government and the Government shall not be liable to pay any compensation. Any person holding or retaining possession of such land thereafter shall be deemed to be a trespasser. Any person holding or retaining possession of such land thereafter shall be deemed to be a trespasser. (4) In case of waste land allotted for agricultural purpose the allottee shall bring the whole are under cultivation within five years from the date of allotment. (5) The allottee shall be liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) only as premium as per the provision of TLR and LR(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 i.e. allotment is subject to realization of premium. (6) The allottee shall be liable to pay Rs. 0.28(twenty eight paise) only as land revenue under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. (7) The allottee shall be entitled to plant trees on his land to enjoy the products thereof and to fell, utilize or dispose of the timber of any on his land. (8) The allottee shall be liable to pay all other taxes for the time being in force or imposed in future under any law. (9) The allotment shall be liable to be cancelled if- (a) except in cases falling under the Clause (4), the land is not used within two years of the date of allotment for the purpose for which it is allotted; or (b) the allottee commits a breach of any of the conditions mentioned therein before or any of the provision of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980; or (c) at any time it is discovered that the allottee was not eligible for this allotment in terms of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980 or guilty of misrepresentation at the time of allotment. Provided before such cancellation is ordered a notice is given to allottee to show cause against cancellation within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice. (10) No compensation shall be payable by the Government on account of cancellation of any allotment order or re-entry by the Collector, but if the allottee has built any construction on the land, they will be allowed a reasonable opportunity to remove the same. Schedule of land allotted. Name of mouja-Sarashima Plot No. 2457/P Area.04 acres Classification-Bastu Sub-Divisional Magistrate Belonia, South Tripura 12. Schedule of land allotted. Name of mouja-Sarashima Plot No. 2457/P Area.04 acres Classification-Bastu Sub-Divisional Magistrate Belonia, South Tripura 12. In the compliance order aforesaid it has been categorically mentioned that the order of allotment has been issued as per approval of the Revenue Department, Government of Tripura, in terms of Rule 11(1), (b) and Rule 9 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980(hereinafter referred to, in short, the TLR and LR(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980), and in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 16.11.2010, in connection with WP (C) No. 508 of 2010. The compliance order, in fact, is an allotment order in favour of the Petitioner and her husband for the purpose of homestead land in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the TLR and LR Rules, 1980, subject to certain conditions lying in the allotment order. The Schedule of the land has been clearly mentioned, which reveals that the area of land allotted in the name of the Petitioner and her husband is 0.04 acres. 13. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the proposal for allotment of 0.04 acres, under CS Plot No. 2457/P has been made, on condition of payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as premium and the valuation of the land has been fixed at @Rs. 70,000/- per acre. The Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner, being a landless lady, having no source of income, has no sufficient means to make such exorbitantly big amount. 14. In reply to the counter affidavit, the Petitioner submitted additional affidavit contending therein that as per the order of the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, the Tehshilder, Sarashima Tehshil Kachari conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 13.03.2002, stating therein, that the Petitioner was in possession of 0.09 acres of land out of 0.17 acres of land near the road of the traced map of Plot No. 2457 of Khatian No. 1734 in Sarashima Mouja as long as 1985 AD. On 09.09.2002, the husband of the Petitioner, in pursuance of the notice of the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, appeared before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia and on considering the statement of the husband of the Petitioner and as per the report of the Tehsilder as well as on the basis of the Land Acquisition Collector's Notice dated 17.07.2001, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, ordered to propose for allotment of land measuring 0.06 acres in favour of the Petitioner, to the then District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura. The relevant extracts of the orders dated 13.03.2002 and 09.09.2002, read as follows: To The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura. Sub: Inquiry Report of Mouja Sarashima. Ref: No. F.6(114)SDO/BLN/SUR/99/838. Sir, As per your above referred order I went for physical inquiry. On investigation it revealed that the claimant, Smti Maya Chakraborty, W/O Kanti Chakraborty, resident own, is in possession of 0.09 acres of land out of 0.17 acres of land near the road of the traced map of Plot No. 2457 of Khatian No. 1734 in Sarashima Mouja as long as 1985 AD. The rest part is possessed by Sunil Chandra Paul, S/O Har Kumar Paul, resident+PO own. Thus the abovementioned information is placed for your information. Sd/- 13/3/02 Tahashildar Sarashima Tashil Kachari South Tripura 09.09.2002 Kanti Chakraborty appeared on behalf of Maya Chakraborty. On the basis of Tdr. Report notice could not be served on the 2nd party as he lives outside of Belonia Sub Division. Sri Chakraborty has submitted a letter of L.A. Collector, South Tripura showing plot No. 2457(P) under Khatian No. 1734 of Bastu area for 0.03 acres only (4(4)/DM/LA/S/03/2001/846-931 dated 17.7.2001. From his statement and as per Tdr. Report and on the basis of Land Acquisition Collector L.A. Notice, it come out that he is in possession of the area. The possessed area was 0.09 acres, only but out of 0.09 acres, 0.03 acres has already acquired in the last acquisition. 0.06 acres area may be proposed for allotment for him as per his version. Examined and considered. As it is done earlier, the decision and review permission from DM(S) be obtained. Process the matter to DM(S) office. Put up with the approval of DM(S) in course of time. Sd/- P.R. Bhattacharjee 09.09.2002 Sub: Divisional Magistrate Belonia: South Tripura 15. 0.06 acres area may be proposed for allotment for him as per his version. Examined and considered. As it is done earlier, the decision and review permission from DM(S) be obtained. Process the matter to DM(S) office. Put up with the approval of DM(S) in course of time. Sd/- P.R. Bhattacharjee 09.09.2002 Sub: Divisional Magistrate Belonia: South Tripura 15. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the proposal initiated and the permission accorded by the then District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, on 10.01.2003, has not been given effect to by the Respondent No. 2. 16. In reply to the above, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by submitting additional affidavit contended that the Petitioner specifically admitted of being in possession of 0.06 acres after acquisition and, in fact, 0.06 acres of land was considered for allotment on behalf of the Petitioner by the Respondents, but as per Rule 11(a) of the TLR and LR(Allotment of land) Rules, 1980, no land, lying within fifteen meters of the centre line of any public road in a town, shall be allotted. Since the land, under proceeding for allotment, has come under Belonia Nagar Panchayat since 27.03.2009, i.e. within Nagar Panchayat(town land), the situation of the land was investigated by the Tehsilder, who submitted his report stating therein that the land, under proceeding, lies within thirteen meters from the centre line of the 24 meters(78.74 feet) width public road. It has been stated that in the proceeding for allotment of land it was considered that as per rules, land beyond fifteen meters can only be allotted. Thus on the basis of the investigation report, 0.04 acres of land only was found in under possession of the Petitioner, lying beyond fifteen meters. Therefore, according to the rules and after completing the process of allotment, a parcel of land measuring 0.04 acres has been allotted to the Petitioner. 17. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Petitioner, who was in possession of 0.09 acres of land, has now been allotted only 0.04 acres of land, in terms of the allotment order, which is in gross violation of the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 16.11.2010 in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010. 18. In reply to the above, Mr. 18. In reply to the above, Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has submitted that though there was little delay in implementing the order, but fact remains that the Respondents diligently pursued the matter and carried out a lengthy process of allotment by making survey of the land, in question, and also obtained order from the State Government, for allotment of the land in favour of the Petitioner, which is a sine qua non in terms of the requirements of the TLR and LR Act, 1960. However, admittedly, there was delay in implementing the order, for which the Respondents have tendered unqualified apology. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel by referring to the Notification dated 27.03.2009, has submitted that the State Government has included the area, wherein the land of the Petitioner is situated within the Belonia Transitional Municipal area, in terms of the Urban Development Department Notification No. F.2(9)-UDD/DUD/2008/6726-6895 dated 24.02.2009, in terms of Sections 3 and 7 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. As per requirement of Section 4 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, the process was carried out by inviting objection from all inhabitants likely to be effected. 19. Learned Counsel for the Respondents by referring to the Notification issued by the Government submitted that the land of the Petitioner is now within the precinct of the Belonia Transitional Municipal area, which would be known as Belonia Nagar Panchayat. Therefore, the land allotted to the Petitioner is in terms of the Municipal Act, 1994. 20. In reply to the above contentions, Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Notification issued by the State Government on 27.03.2009, being a subordinate legislation, cannot be given a retrospective effect when the parent legislation is silent about giving retrospective effect. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in (2011) 3 GLR 501 Universal Pipes (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors., wherein it has been specifically indicated that an authority, which has the power to make a subordinate legislation, cannot make the subordinate legislation with retrospective effect, unless it is so authorized by the Legislature, the power to make the subordinate legislation. In the absence of any power so given to a subordinate authority to make a subordinate legislation with retrospective effect, a subordinate legislation has to be treated, and must be allowed to operate prospectively and not retrospectively; more so, when the parent legislation is prospective in nature. 21. Per contra, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur on 10.03.2005, or any order subsequent thereto, passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, or other authorities, is not an allotment order made in favour of the Petitioner. As per the direction of the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, on 10.01.2003, in connection with Case No. 82/REV/82, permission was granted for review and cancellation of the allotment order. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.03.2005, passed by the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, with reference to the direction issued by the DM and Collector, South Tripura, on 10.01.2003, learned senior counsel pointed out that the order, for taking immediate action by way of cancellation of earlier allotment order, was passed in favour of Sri Sunil Chandra Pal and a proposal was made to issue fresh allotment order in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, this order also cannot be interpreted as an allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, since in an allotment order, approval of the State Government was necessary and without such approval, the exercise could not have been treated as complete. 22. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the directions issued by this Court in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, has submitted that this Court has made it very clear in its order, while disposing of the writ petition, with a specific direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to complete the process of allotment as per the direction issued by the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, according to law. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the words, 'according to law' is to be incorporated to mean the law that was prevalent at the time, when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia Sub-Division passed the order dated 22.09.2005 and the direction of the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur on 10.03.2005. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the words, 'according to law' is to be incorporated to mean the law that was prevalent at the time, when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Officer), Belonia Sub-Division passed the order dated 22.09.2005 and the direction of the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur on 10.03.2005. Therefore, the implementation of the order has to be in terms of the existing law at the relevant time and not in terms of law, which has been given effect to by the subordinate legislation dated 27.03.2009. Therefore, the allotment order passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being in terms of the restrictions imposed by the subordinate legislation dated 27.03.2009 in gross violation of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 16.11.2010 in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010. 23. In reply, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel pointed out that a contempt proceeding cannot be treated as continuation of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The Respondents herein, in due compliance of the order, in terms of their own understanding and in terms of the law prevalent at that time, had passed the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner after receipt of the directions issued from the Court. As no allotment order was passed prior to the subordinate legislation dated 27.03.2009, the Respondent authorities could not violate the provisions of the subordinate legislation, while making the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner prospectively. 24. Learned senior counsel for the Respondents further submitted that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment order, she can very well approach the appropriate forum by filing an appeal under Section 93 of the TLR and LR Act, 1960, which provides for appellate provisions against the allotment order passed by the authority concerned. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in terms of the provision under Rule 11 of the TLR and LR(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1980, no land, lying within fifteen meters of the centre line of any public road in a town or within twenty meters of centre line of any main road or within five meters of the centre line of any village road shall be allotted and in respect of town land, no town land shall be allotted without prior sanction of the State Government and except for the purpose of homestead. 25. 25. Referring to the provisions of Rule 9 of the TLR and LR(Allotment of Land) Rule, 1980, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondents that premium is required to be paid by an allottee equal to market value of the land, and thus being the law prevalent, there is no scope to skip the law to suit the requirement of the Petitioner. 26. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to a decision, reported in 2007 CRI.L.J. 2147 All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghavendra Singh and Ors. submitted that when there is a violation of the order of the Court by the contemnor, even if the violation is not willful, the mistaken understanding of the order cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances. The relevant extracts of the decision of All Bengal Excise Licensees Association (supra) read as follows: 22. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that an injunction order was passed on 04.01.2005 and on subsequent extension is still subsisting. Respondent Nos. 1-4 admittedly are highly qualified and highly placed Government officials. Admittedly, by advocate's letter dated 15.03.2005, it was pointed out to them that the injunction order dated 04.01.2005 and its subsequent extensions are still subsisting. They have also acknowledged the receipt of the communication dated 15.03.2005. Under such circumstances, the High Court is not justified in holding that the highly qualified and well placed Government officials did not understand the implication and/or consequence of prohibitory order is an independent proceedings and by sheer misconception thought that there is no bar to issue excise licenses as was held by the learned Judge in the impugned order. This Court can only say it is rather unfortunate that such officers who are not capable of or not able to understand the implication of the prohibitory orders passed by the High Court should be allowed to hold such high offices. During the course of the hearing of the contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable the Respondents to consider whether the contemnors was prepared to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the Court's orders and on such adjourned date, the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. During the course of the hearing of the contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable the Respondents to consider whether the contemnors was prepared to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the Court's orders and on such adjourned date, the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. Under such circumstances, the plea of mistake of understanding the order cannot at all be accepted. Likewise, the High Court also was not justified in not directing the contemnors to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the solemn orders passed by the very same Judge and n view of the clear finding of the Court that they had acted in clear violation of the said interim order made by the High Court. 23. Even assuming that there was any scope for bona fide misunderstanding on the part of the Respondents, once it was found that the Respondent had disobeyed the specific order passed earlier by the Court, the High Court should have directed the contemnors to undo the wrong committed by them which was done in clear breach of the order of the Court by resorting the status quo ante by canceling the lottery wrongfully held by them. The learned Judge found that the Respondent-contemnors had held the lottery in violation of the Court's order and the results of the said lottery should not be permitted to take effect and should be treated as unlawful and invalid for the purpose of grant of license. The learned Single Judge for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and the sanctity of the solemn order of the court of law which cannot be violated by the executive authority either deliberately or unwittingly should have set aside the lottery held and should not have allowed the Respondents to gain a wrongful advantage thereby. 27. However, attendant facts in All Bengal Excise Licensees Association (supra), reveal that during the course of the hearing of the contempt application, the matter was adjourned by the High Court to enable the Respondents to consider, whether the contemnors were prepared to cancel the lottery held on 20, 21 and 22.03.2005 in violation of the Court's orders and on such adjourned date, the contemnors did not agree to cancel the lottery. Therefore, the situation, in which the unqualified apology for mistake of misunderstanding on the part of the Respondents was made, was after disputing the specific order passed by the Court. The facts and circumstances in the present case, in hand, cannot be said to be governed by the principle enunciated in All Bengal Excise Licensees Association (supra), since the Respondents-contemnors herein diligently obeyed the order passed by this Court and also issued allotment order to the Petitioner. 28. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689 : Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah submitted that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. 29. In fact, if a party against whom such an order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. 30. However, in the instant case, since the order has been passed by the competent authority, which is subject to appeal, the Petitioner can very well approach the appellate forum for redressal of her grievance. 31. In reply to the above contentions, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the direction issued by this Court in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, did not undertake to direct specifically to allot a particular area of land to the Petitioner, it only directed the concerned authorities to take up appropriate measure to implement the order passed by the learned Addl. DM and Collector, on 10.03.2005. Since in terms of the order passed on 10.03.2005, only a direction was issued to initiate a process for cancellation of allotment order and for allotment of land to the Petitioner, the claim allotment from the date of which a direction was issued to initiate process, is not tenable in law. 32. However, though the process was initiated belatedly but allotment was made only after the intervention by the High Court, therefore, the allotment order passed subsequently thereafter cannot be given retrospective effect, since there was no direction either by the High Court or by the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur to do so. 33. 32. However, though the process was initiated belatedly but allotment was made only after the intervention by the High Court, therefore, the allotment order passed subsequently thereafter cannot be given retrospective effect, since there was no direction either by the High Court or by the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur to do so. 33. In support of his contention Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel by relying a decision reported in (2008) 1 SCC 318 Balakrushna Behera and Anr. v. Satya Prakash Dash, submitted that since the initial direction of the High Court was to complete the process, which was carried out by the Respondents, no case for contempt can be said to be have been made out and the Respondents, having complied with the directions of the Court by completing the process of allotment, cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court's order. 34. By referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 373 Municipal Corpn., Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dubey, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that if the authority concerned is bound by the decisions of the High Court it is also bound by the direction issued by the State Government. If it had violated the direction of the High Court it cannot be said to be contempt of Court. We may gainfully reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court herein below, which read as follows: 20. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The Corporation may be bund by the decision of the High Court, but it was also bound by the directions of the State of Madhya Pradesh. If it had violated the direction of the State(sic High Court), in terms whereof its earlier policy decision stood reversed, it cannot be said to have committed a contempt of court. The question recently came up for consideration in State of Orissa v. Aswini Kumar Baliar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 759 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment and order. If was held: 11. If was held: 11. In the instant case, the action taken by the Respondent in purported violation of the Court's order arose owing to a subsequent cause of action, namely, orders passed by the State of Orissa and unless the said orders were set aside, the Inspector of Schools can(sic cannot) be said to have flouted the order of the High Court. 35. In AIR 2001 SC 1293 Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a contempt jurisdiction when the order in question is susceptible to two interpretations as regards its applicability, one in favour of contemnor and other in favour of complaint, the contemnor is entitled to benefit of doubt. The relevant extracts of the decision read as follows: 18. Having discussed the law on the subject, let us thus at this juncture analyse as to whether in fact, the contempt alleged to have been committed by the alleged contemners, can said to have been established firmly without there being any element of doubt involved in the matter and that the Court would not be acting on mere probabilities having however, due regard to the nature of jurisdiction being quasi criminal conferred on to the law courts. Admittedly, this Court directed maintenance of status quo with the following words - "the members of the Petitioner-Sangha who were before the High Court in the writ petition out of which the present proceedings arise". and it is on this score the applicant contended categorically that the intent of the Court to include all the members presenting the Petition before this Court whereas for the Respondent Mr. Ray contended that the same is restricted to the members who filed the writ petition before the High Court which culminated in the initiation of proceeding before this Court. The Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents also record the same. Ray contended that the same is restricted to the members who filed the writ petition before the High Court which culminated in the initiation of proceeding before this Court. The Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents also record the same. The issue thus arises as to whether the order stands categorical to lend credence to the answers of the Respondent or the same supports the contention as raised by the applicants herein - Incidentally, since the appeal is pending in this Court for adjudication, and since the matter under consideration have no bearing on such adjudication so far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, we are not expressing any opinion in the matter neither we are required to express opinion thereon, excepting however, recording that probabilities of the situation may also warrant a finding, in favour of the interpretation of the applicant. The doubt persists and as such in any event the Respondents being the alleged contemners are entitled to have the benefit or advantage of such a doubt having regard to the nature of the proceeding as noticed herein before more fully. 19. In view of the observations as above, we are not also inclined to go into the question of apology. 36. On careful consideration of the entire gamut of facts as discussed above, it appears that the Respondents-contemnors in due compliance of the order passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 508 of 2010, issued the allotment order. The allotment order so issued may give rise to a new cause of action for the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance, but the contempt as alleged by the Petitioner cannot be said to have been established, in view of the fact that there was no clear and specific direction by the Court to allot a particular area of land to the Petitioner. The order of the Court directed the concerned authorities to initiate the process in terms of the direction issued by the Addl. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, which, apparently, it appears that the Respondent authorities, religiously complied with. 37. Though there was little delay in carrying out the direction of the court, however, the Respondents have prayed for unqualified apology. DM and Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur, which, apparently, it appears that the Respondent authorities, religiously complied with. 37. Though there was little delay in carrying out the direction of the court, however, the Respondents have prayed for unqualified apology. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the contempt petition, the unqualified apology sought for on behalf of the Respondent for delayed implementation of the order of the Court, is accepted. 38. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. Petition dismissed