JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. The petitioners seek to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court contending that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions contained in oral order dated 12.06.2014 in LPA No. 2109 of 2009, which confirmed the oral judgment dated 25.01.2008 in SCA No. 6665 of 2009, which in turn confirmed the decision of the Secretary of Revenue Department, Gujarat State in regularizing unauthorized encroachment of the petitioners into the 'gauchar' land of village Kotda. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:- 2.1 The dispute revolves round portion of land (hereinafter to be referred as "the disputed land") admeasuring 1 acre and 12 gunthas of block No. 49 of village Kotda, Dist. Banaskantha, which according to the petitioners was under cultivation of the petitioners since 1972, though the petitioners were not the lawful owners of the land. Therefore, the Government treated it to be an encroachment of the petitioners on the disputed land. 2.2 As the petitioners believed it to be unintended encroachment and being of scheduled tribe, initiated procedure for getting their occupation on the encroached land regularized. Initially, by order dated 08.06.1993, the District Collector, Banaskantha rejected such application, which the petitioners carried in revision before the Revenue Secretary of the State Government by filing Revision Application No. 43 of 1993 and the Secretary by his order dated 26.11.1993 set aside the order of the Collector and further ordered for regularization of the encroachment by taking into consideration the relevant policies of the State Government, prevailing then. 2.3 It appears that pursuant to the order of the Secretary, the Collector issued notice calling upon the petitioners to show their willingness to make payment of specified amount, which later on came to be rejected by the Collector on the ground that the disputed land had potential to be used for non-agriculture purpose and hence, cannot be regularized for agriculture purpose. In revision, the order of the Collector was upheld. The petitioner was constrained to approach the High Court by filing SCA No. 6665 of 1999. This petition came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 25.01.2008, wherein the order dated 15.03.1999 and 25.04.1996, which were subsequent to the order dated 26.11.1993, were quashed and set aside. In revision, the order of the Collector was upheld. The petitioner was constrained to approach the High Court by filing SCA No. 6665 of 1999. This petition came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 25.01.2008, wherein the order dated 15.03.1999 and 25.04.1996, which were subsequent to the order dated 26.11.1993, were quashed and set aside. While allowing the petition, relevant observations made by the Court with regards to regularization of the encroachment are as under:- "(9) .... Hence, till the point of time the first order dated 26.11.1993 was operational and was not either modified, disturbed or quashed either by a higher forum in appropriate proceedings or withdrawn, again in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, the said order dated 26.11.1993 had to be given effect to in entirety because that was the order made by the State Government. The Collector being a subordinate authority could not have travelled beyond the order made by the superior authority and hence, the order made by the Collector on 25.04.1996 could not have been made and the revisional authority vide impugned order dated 15.03.1999 could not have confirmed the said order. Therefore, the impugned order made by respondent No. 2 on 15.03.1999 and the order dated 25.04.1996 made by respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed and set aside." 2.4 It appears that this order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal by the State Government and in the LPA, the Division Bench, while confirming the order of the Single Judge, held as under:- "4. In view of above, we are of the opinion, that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in holding that the Collector ought not to have disobeyed the order of the superior authority dated 26.11.1993. The view taken by learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the same. It will be open for the State to act as per the order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Appeals). If the status of the land is changed, it will be open for the State to act and implement the order dated 26.11.1993. 5. Learned AGP for the appellant State has also contended that pursuant to Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980, a copy of which is produced along with the affidavit dated 16.4.2014, Revenue Department has framed policy for regularization of encroachment. 5. Learned AGP for the appellant State has also contended that pursuant to Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980, a copy of which is produced along with the affidavit dated 16.4.2014, Revenue Department has framed policy for regularization of encroachment. In our view, the order dated 26.11.1993 is not under challenge before any higher forum. Therefore, we cannot examine the same. However, in our view, this is nothing but insubordination on the part of the authority. 6. We hope that the Collector will implement the order dated 26.11.1993 as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from today. The respondents will co-operate with the appellant and will now make the payment within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the Collector failing which the benefit of order dated 26.11.1993 will not be given to the petitioner." 2.5 The State thereafter, being aggrieved by the order of the Letters Patent Bench, filed SLP before the Apex Court and the Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP by its order dated 24.08.2015. 2.6 The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition for contempt and in the meanwhile, it appears that, the State Government passed a resolution dated 01.12.2015 by which the encroachment of the petitioners was regularized. However, while doing so, as per the valuation carried out by the District Valuation Committee, the land was valued at Rs. 320/- per sq. mtr. and 12% permissible increase per sq. mtr. was added. 2.7 It appears that the resolution of the State Government dated 01.12.2015 is also the subject matter of challenge by the petitioners, who filed SCA No. 153 of 2016 and learned Single Judge by order dated 08.01.2016 issued notice. However, while granting interim relief, has observed as under:- "5. The Court finds that in the facts of the case, to consider the request of the petitioner for interim protection, the petitioner is required to be put to condition to deposit some amount out of the amount stated to be determined as per the communication dated 2/12/2015, and for such purpose condition to deposit 25% of the said amount will be appropriate at this interim stage to grant protection to the petitioner pending the petition. 6. 6. Hence, by way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of the land in question on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the above said amount before returnable date with the respondent No. 2-Collector. Direct service permitted." 2.8 This order dated 08.01.2016 was challenged by the petitioners by filing LPA No. 52 of 2016, which also came to be disposed of by order dated 22.01.2016, wherein the Letters Patent Bench reduced the amount of 25% to an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of this order dated 22.01.2016, which is as under:- "4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that if four weeks time is granted, the appellants would be able to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- to which learned AGP has no objection. However, learned AGP submits that all the contentions on facts and law may be reserved for canvassing submissions on merit before the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the consensus arrived, as above, we are inclined to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application both with a direction to the appellants petitioners to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from today with respondent No. 2 District Collector, Banaskantha, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to final outcome of Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2016, and till then, status quo qua the subject land shall not be disturbed. 6. Accordingly, order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2016 is modified to the aforesaid extent only. It is needless to mention that the observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the pending writ petition. 2.9 It appears that SCA No. 153 of 2016 is still pending before the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the Secretary of the State Government once having taken a decision regarding regularizing of the encroachment, the conduct of the officers of the State Government in contesting such an order of the Secretary before this Court till the Supreme Court is only with a view to harass the petitioners and is indirectly committing contempt. He also submitted that though the order of the Secretary of Revenue Department is of the year 1993, still resolution of the State Government is dated 01.12.2015 regularizing encroachment, but at the same time, valuing the disputed land at exorbitant rates applicable in the year 2015 is nothing less than committing of contempt whereby petitioners are prevented from enjoying fruits of their litigation. He strongly contended that such attitude of the officers of the State Government in dragging the petitioners in one after another litigation till the highest level is required to be deprecated in strong manner, as such officers used the Court proceedings as a tool to frustrate the orders of the Court itself. Learned Advocate for the petitioners relied upon judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936, Privy Council, page No. 253(2) in support of his contention that the procedure which is required to be followed has to be necessarily followed and therefore, the directions which were issued by this Court should also be followed as if it is a procedure required under the law. In this judgment, the Privy Council was dealing with the conviction recorded for offence under Section 396 IPC, wherein the accused was sentenced to death, where the conviction was mainly based on the strength of the confession said to have been made by the accused before the Magistrate, of which evidence was also given by the Magistrate, but the statement was not recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, considering the nature of issue dealt with by the Privy Council, being far and wide from the issue under consideration herewith, applying ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the case is improper. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of E.T. Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association, reported in AIR 2005 SC, page No. 115 to emphasis his contention that the bureaucracy cannot be permitted to make a deliberate attempt to circumvent the order of the Court and to stick to their stand. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court are as under:- "14. Learned Counsel submitted that on account of subsequent event now the ban does not survive and GPF is being disbursed and order has been withdrawn, appellant's apology be accepted and he be discharged. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court are as under:- "14. Learned Counsel submitted that on account of subsequent event now the ban does not survive and GPF is being disbursed and order has been withdrawn, appellant's apology be accepted and he be discharged. He submitted that appellant has put in long 30 years of service and he has never shown any disrespect to Court's order. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the High Court. 15. We have heard both the learned counsel at length. We are of the opinion that the present order passed by the High Court in the facts and circumstances the case is fully justified. Once a stand was taken by the Advocate General that the ban does not survive and amount of GPF was disbursed during the period 1996-97, then there was no reason why the order banning of disbursement of GPF was not revoked. The stand taken by the State on one hand that amount of GPF was disbursed still they were not prepared to revoke the order, we fail to understand this inconsistent stand. Once the administrative order is issued then it cannot be revoked by oral submission before Court. It has to be revoked by another administrative order (which they have now passed). If the Adv. General had made a statement before the Court then it should have been followed with the administrative order revoking the ban. Till the date of argument learned counsel for the appellant could not produce before us the order revoking the ban, on the contrary the ban was kept in force and the second contempt petition was filed before the Court and the Advocate General again made a statement that GPF applications will be processed that makes the matter worse for the petitioner and it does not mitigate the situation. It is different that now a realization has dawn upon the authorities as they find no escape route for them, therefore, they have now revoked the order dated 25.2.1997 by the Order dated 23.9.2004 after close of arguments." 3.2 The case before the Apex Court revolves round the statement made by the Advocate General followed with the administrative order in consonance with the statement of the Advocate General. Despite this and contrary to the stand before the Court, the ban in question was kept in force, which required filing of the second contempt petition before the Court and looking to the adamant conduct, the Apex Court proceeded to comment upon the conduct of the officers as under:- "16 It has become a tendency with the Government Officer to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fiat. The executive & legislature has to work within Constitutional frame work and the judiciary has been given a role of watch dog to keep the legislature & executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of Court's Order and appellant is guilty of flouting the Courts Order." 4. In the facts of the present case, it appears that the State Government was legitimately contesting the litigation at several stages, till after having finally lost before the Apex Court when vide order dated 24.08.2015, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in LPA, thereafter, the State proceeded to issue the resolution dated 01.12.2015. Therefore, the observations made in the judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners would not apply in the present case. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang, reported in AIR 2007 SC, page No. 2029. He drew our attention to paras-52 and 53 of the judgment and submitted that strong action be taken for deliberate and willful disobedience. Paras-52 and 53 read as under:- "52. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang, reported in AIR 2007 SC, page No. 2029. He drew our attention to paras-52 and 53 of the judgment and submitted that strong action be taken for deliberate and willful disobedience. Paras-52 and 53 read as under:- "52. In order to maintain sanctity of the orders of the highest court of the country, it has become imperative that those who are guilty of deliberately disregarding the orders of the Court in a clandestine manner should be appropriately punished. The Majesty of the Court and the Rule of Law can never be maintained unless this Court ensures meticulous compliance of its orders. 53. We have carefully perused the undertaking given by the parties to the Court and orders of this Court dated 12th December, 2001 and 8th January, 2002 based on the undertaking of the parties given to this Court and other relevant facts and circumstances. According to our considered view the respondents are clearly guilty of committing contempt of court by deliberate and willful disobedience of the undertaking given by them to this Court. In this view of the matter, in order to maintain sanctity of the orders of this Court, the respondents must receive appropriate punishment for deliberately flouting the orders of this Court." 6. The facts of the case before the Apex Court would clearly indicate that the Apex Court was dealing with a solemn undertaking given by the parties to the Court and having found that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience of such solemn undertaking given to the highest Court, action was taken under the Contempt of Courts Act. This would, therefore, may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal & Anr. Vs. SK. Monobbor Hossain & Anr., reported in (2012) 11 SCC, page No. 761. He referred to and relied upon para-9, which reads as under:- "9. The tenor of the dicta of this Court on the topic is crystal clear. This Court has, time and again, asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. He referred to and relied upon para-9, which reads as under:- "9. The tenor of the dicta of this Court on the topic is crystal clear. This Court has, time and again, asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper-sensitive or swung by emotions, but must act judiciously. In Dinabandhu Sahu v. The State of Orissa (1972) 4 SCC 761 , this Court very pertinently observed that:- "2. ...it is no part of the judicial function to be vindictive or allow any personal or other considerations to enter in the discharge of its functions..." 8. In this case the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of expunging of remarks, wherein the High Court, while issuing directions, had made certain remarks against the performance of the former Judges who were members of the Tribunal and while doing so, made these observations and ultimately allowed the appeal by expunging the remarks. 9. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC, page No. 599. He drew our attention to para-29, which reads under:- 29. Having given our due consideration to all the relevant factors and behaviour of the contemners, we have no hesitation in holding that the contemners are liable to be punished for their offensive and contemptuous behaviour which has undermined the dignity of the Courts of law and justice administration system as well as prejudicially affected the rights of third parties who, in fact, were not even impleaded as parties in the public interest petitions. They have squandered the valuable time of this Court which could have been devoted more fruitfully in dealing with the pending cases and matters of greater urgency and importance. 10. However, before drawing conclusion as in para-29, the Apex Court has also recorded factual matrix to hold the contemners responsible in para-26, which reads as under:- "26. They have squandered the valuable time of this Court which could have been devoted more fruitfully in dealing with the pending cases and matters of greater urgency and importance. 10. However, before drawing conclusion as in para-29, the Apex Court has also recorded factual matrix to hold the contemners responsible in para-26, which reads as under:- "26. The examination of the factual matrix of the present case and conduct of the respondent-contemners, particularly the reply filed by them, places it beyond ambiguity that they have committed the following acts and omissions intentionally, which have undermined the dignity of this Court and the justice delivery system: (a) The contemners have abused the process of law to the extent that it impinged upon the dignity of the justice delivery system as well as prejudicially affected the rights of other private parties. (b) The contemners have withheld material facts from the Court which were in their personal knowledge. While withholding such material facts, they have also persisted upon filing petitions after petitions in the name of public interest with somewhat similar reliefs. (c) The contemner, B.K. Sharma, has made irresponsible remarks and statements against the Gujarat High Court without any justifiable cause in law. (d) The public interest litigation [Writ Petition (C) No. 260 of 2004] instituted by the contemner lacks bona fide and, in fact, was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group which was interested in banning of the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos and its products by obtaining certain orders and directions from this Court. A definite attempt was made by the contemners to secure a ban on these activities with ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as it has come on record that they are some of the suitable substitutes for asbestos. Thus, it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of court. (e) The contemner has also filed petitions and affidavits either with incorrect facts or with facts which even to the knowledge of the contemner were not true." 11. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2012) 7 SCC, page No. 433. He drew our attention to para-44, which reads as under:- "44. Learned Advocate for the petitioners next relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2012) 7 SCC, page No. 433. He drew our attention to para-44, which reads as under:- "44. The consistent effort of this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being thwarted by motivated action on the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time. This Court, thus, now views this matter with greater emphasis on directions that should be made to curb incidents of disobedience." 12. In this case, the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of admission of candidates to the medical course and was examining a situation were meritorious and suitable candidates were ignored in violation of principles of natural justice. While observing as above, the Apex Court has recorded the need of the hour to be binding dicta and strict enforcement of statutory regulations so that all concerned are mandatorily required to implement the true spirit and substance which would not permit contemptuous conduct of the stakeholders and to avoid the situation, proceeded to give directions to ameliorate the process of selection. However, there was nothing before the Apex Court to decide upon the contempt of any party during the conduct of the case before it. 13. Learned Advocate for the petitioners last relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gohil Jesangbhaii Raysangbhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2014 (1) GLH, page No. 609, wherein in para-21, the Apex Court, while dealing with validity of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, as applicable to the State of Gujarat, wherein the question with regards to resolution passed by the State fixing rate of premium to be paid to the State for converting, transferring and for changing the use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, observed as under:- "21. It was submitted by the appellants that assuming that the valuation of the land is permitted to be done as per the Jantri rates, it must be so done on the basis of the rates as prevalent on the date of the application. It was submitted by the appellants that assuming that the valuation of the land is permitted to be done as per the Jantri rates, it must be so done on the basis of the rates as prevalent on the date of the application. The resultant injustice was highlighted in the case of Savitaben in Civil Appeal No. 4129/2012. The fact however, remains that the Section speaks of previous sanction. As noted earlier, Section 4(2) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 also speaks about the previous sanction. Thus, this is the theme which runs through all such welfare agricultural enactments, and a similar provision in the said Act has been left undisputed by the bench of three Judges of this Court. Therefore, the Jantri rate to be applied will be on the date of the sanction by the Collector, and not on the date of the application made by the party." Therefore, the question before the Apex Court was pertaining to fixing of rate of premium on account of conversion of land, transfer and/or for changing the use of land from one purpose to another, whereas the case on hand is pertaining to regularization of encroachment. Therefore, the parameters applicable or the policy framed for the purpose of regularization of encroachment is different from what was examined by the Apex Court. Moreover, this aspect is still in the case of this petitioner under examination by this Court in separate petition, where it would be still open for the petitioner to get a specific direction pertaining to valuation. 14. As against this, learned Government Pleader for the State took us through various affidavits of the officers of the State Government and submitted that the State was bonafidely prosecuting the issue, more particularly as the disputed land is 'gauchar' land and it was admittedly encroached upon by the petitioners, which is required to be protected by the State Government. She drew attention to the communication made by the petitioners to the Collector dated 21.07.2014, wherein the petitioners have prayed for regularizing their encroachment as they are in occupation of this land prior to 1972. In this communication, in unequivocal terms, they have stated that for the purpose of regularization, they are ready and willing to pay any price which can be made applicable under the existing Rules of regularization. In this communication, in unequivocal terms, they have stated that for the purpose of regularization, they are ready and willing to pay any price which can be made applicable under the existing Rules of regularization. It is contended that once having readily agreed to such situation, it is now not open for the petitioners to take a stand that the valuation carried out by the District Valuation Committee, being on the higher side, would amount to committing contempt of Court's order. She also submitted that the resolution dated 01.12.2015 is still subject matter of challenge in SCA No. 153 of 2016, wherein this Court prima facie has found valuation to be appropriate, therefore, directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the amount calculated at the stage of grant of interim relief. 14.1 She submitted that there is no question of deliberate or willful disobedience of the orders of the High Court as firstly, there are no categoric and positive direction in the orders passed by the High Court in SCA as well as LPA. Moreover, after conclusion of the litigation before the Apex Court, within no time, the entire procedure as required by the State Government is followed, which involves valuation of the land. As the land being the priced commodity of the State Government, a definite procedure has to be followed, which in the instant case has been followed forthwith and without delay and the resolution is passed for regularizing the encroachment and allotting the land to the petitioners. 14.2 Mrs. Manisha Shah upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., reported in (2014) 16 SCC, page No. 204. Mrs. Manisha Shah drew Court's attention to paras-11 and 12, which read as under:- "11. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his willful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153 ; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405 ; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705 ; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299 ). 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'willful'. The word 'willful' introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. 'Willful' means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Willful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Willful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct". (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct". (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582 ; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2185 ; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308 ; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, AIR 2000 SC 1880 ; M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105 ; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas, AIR 2006 SC 258 ; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753 )." 15. Having considered the facts of this case and submissions made by the rival parties, this Court would proceed to consider the question whether the respondents herein have committed any contempt of Court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, more particularly under Section 10 or whether the action of the respondents would fall within the definition of civil contempt as contemplated under Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Courts Act. For ready reference, Sections 2(b) and 13 of the Contempt of Court Act are reproduced hereunder:- "2. (b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court; [13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,- (a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice; (b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.]." 16. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the officers of the respondent State had adopted an attitude of unnecessary litigating the issue which was an unwarranted action, as a result of which, the petitioners were subjected to unnecessary litigation and precluding them from enjoying their rights of regularizing their encroachment. This Court is unable to agree to this contention in view of the fact that as per the case of the petitioners, since 1972, the petitioners are in continuous occupation of the land, of course, as encroachers till the resolution dated 01.12.2015. Therefore, they have continued to enjoy the disputed land. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the disputed land was a part of 'gauchar' land of the village, which was encroached upon by the petitioners, the said authorities were perfectly within their Rights to protect such 'gauchar' land and in doing so, the litigation had resulted, which was carried till the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents cannot be considered to be contemptuous. 17. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that deliberate action of the respondents in passing resolution dated 01.12.2015 and carrying out the valuation at the rate prevailing is also a contempt as the same would result into frustrating the decisions of this Court. This argument will also not persuade this Court to hold the conduct of the respondents as contemptuous, more particularly in view of the expressed willingness in writing of the petitioners which is referred in preceding paras and is part of record at Annexure-H, giving expressed consent to make payment of the land for regularizing their encroachment. It will also be pertinent to record that as per the policy of the Government for regularizing the encroachment, the Valuation Committee have been constituted at different stages and depending upon the value of the land, sanction for regularizing such land is given to private individuals. In the instant case, the valuation is carried out by the District Valuation Committee, which has carried out the valuation in its meeting dated 18.09.2014. Moreover, this Court would not at this stage proceed to examine the merits of the decision of Valuation Committee as the subject matter is still at large in the writ petition filed by the petitioners before this Court. 18. Moreover, this Court would not at this stage proceed to examine the merits of the decision of Valuation Committee as the subject matter is still at large in the writ petition filed by the petitioners before this Court. 18. No other points have been canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners to make out ground for initiating contempt proceedings. 19. In view of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners would not amount to deliberate or willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and hence, there is no contempt committed by the respondents. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. In the facts of this case, no order as to costs.