Judgment 1. This is an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for non-compliance and disobedience of order dated 30th September 2013 passed in OWP No.1534/2012 titled Mohammad Ramzan Bhat vs. State and Others. The respondents in terms of the said order had been directed to accord consideration to petitioner’s claim and take a decision in the matter in accordance with rules within six weeks. It would be advantageous to reproduce operative part of the order dated 30th September 2013, hereunder: “In view of the short controversy involved, the writ petition is disposed’ of with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to petitioner’s claim and take a decision in the matter in accordance with rules within six weeks from the date copy of the order is served on them. Petitioner would be free to handover copy of the petition along with copies of all its annexures to the respondents to facilitate early decision in the matter.” 2. Petitioner avers in the application on hand that petitioner had been in possession of a piece of land measuring 06 MarIas and 15 sft under survey No.86 min, situated at Estate Nursingh Garh Gogjibagh. The occupation of petitioner was regularised vide Government Order No.Rev (NDJ)-46 of 1973, for which market value was fixed at Rs.35,904/- plus 25% penalty. The said amount, despite repeated requests by petitioner, has not been received by respondent/contemnor No.2. Petitioner claims that may be petitioner could not come upto the expectation of respondent No.2, i.e. why he is being dragged and harassed, otherwise adjacent to petitioner’s piece of land, is another piece of land, which has been dealt with under aforesaid Government order and ownership rights conferred upon its occupants. Petitioner also states that another plot of land measuring 07 MarIas 257 sft falling under Khasra No.836 min, situated at Estate Nur Singh Garh, Gogjibagh, being Nazool, adjacent to the above regularised land, for which petitioner applied in accordance with J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, for converting into ownership rights in favour of petitioner, but dillydallying tactics have been adopted by respondent nor, which constrained petitioner to file writ petition (OWP No.1534/2012) which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider and settle the claim of petitioner and take a decision in the matter in accordance with rules within six weeks. Non-implementation of order, according to petitioner, has forced him to knock at portals of this Court with instant application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. 3. Respondent have filed compliance report. They aver therein that after receiving the order dated 27th November 2015, the issue was taken up with Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) vide letter dated 30th November 2015 for detailed facts of the case. The Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) vide letter dated 3rd December 2015 is stated to have intimated that petitioner raised two issues before the Court: one issue is that Government order No.Rev (NDK) 46 of 1973 dated 28.01.1973 be implemented for land measuring 06 MarIas 15 sfts under Survey no.836, wherein he has constructed his residential house and issue No.2 is that further encroached land measuring 07 MarIas 257 sfts be regularised in his favour. It is also averred in compliance report that Revenue Department vide letter No.Rev (NDK) 75/40 dated 12th June 1998, had conveyed approval of Hon’ble Revenue Minister regarding market value of the land @ Rs.35,905.00 per Kanal for encroached State land measuring 06 MarIas 15 sft falling under survey No.836 by petitioner in Estate Nursingh Garh (Gogji Bagh) and has directed that possession of petitioner on the said patch of land be regularised in favour of petitioner at the above mentioned rate plus 250/0 penalty and the sale proceedings be credited to Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) in terms of para 6 of Government order No.Rev (NDK) 46 of 1973 dated 20th January 1973 read with Government order No.Rev (NDK) 4 of 1976 dated 23rd November 1976 and further action be taken as envisaged in para 7&8 of aforementioned order. Respondents maintain that petitioner failed to pay approved amount and requested for revision of the said rate before the Chief Minister and the file was already submitted to SDA vide No.154/CAN dated 18th July 1988 for further course of action and Administrative Department due to non-payment of approved rate has not issued formal orders to the regularisation of possession of land. The Survey No.836 in Estate Nursingh Garh, according to respondents, is recorded in revenue records as State Maqboza Stadium and the said occupied patch of land measuring 06 Marlas 15 sfts under said Survey no. The Survey No.836 in Estate Nursingh Garh, according to respondents, is recorded in revenue records as State Maqboza Stadium and the said occupied patch of land measuring 06 Marlas 15 sfts under said Survey no. is adjacent to Bakshi Stadium, as such, para 6 of Government order dated 20th January 1973 has been violated, hence no action was taken under the provisions envisaged in para 7&8 of the said Government order. This, as said by respondents, is also one of the causes that the said patch of land has not been regularised in favour of petitioner as per the said Government order. 4. Respondents also assert that petitioner applied before the Revenue Minister, J&K, on 25th May 2004 for regularisation of 16 Marl as under Survey No.836 in Estate Nursingh Garh located at Wazir Bagh adjacent to Bakshi Staidum, and after spot verification of field staff of office of Assistant Commissioner, Nazool, on 8th July 2004, it was found that petitioner is encroacher of 14 Marlas of land under above mentioned survey no., as such, petitioner has concealed actual position during seeking approval of the rate of above mentioned patch of land i.e. 06 Marlas 15 sfts, so petitioner wants to take undue benefit of aforesaid Government order. 4. Respondents also maintain that petitioner applied for vesting of ownership rights under Roshni Act on 28th May 2004 for 16 Marlas of land under Survey No.836 and accordingly verification was got conducted by Tehsildar South who submitted spot verification which reveals: a. Petitioner is occupant of 14 Mralas of land under said survey no., which is adjacent to Bakshi Steadium and no entry exists in revenue records, i.e. in Girdawari 2004, as such petitioner does not fulfil requirements under Roshni Act. Further he has illegally constructed commercial complex on the edge of the road violating Ribbon Development Act. The said construction has been raised without any proper permission from competent authorities taking undue advantage of floods of 2014. b. Petitioner does not fulfil condition of Rule 7 of SRO 64 as the application of petitioner is without stamped Court fee of Rs.10/- c. No documentary proof or extract of Girdawari Shajra Kat, Tatima Shajra of the said land regarding the possession of petitioner has been enclosed with the case. d. No affidavit as per the stand rules has been enclosed with the case. d. No affidavit as per the stand rules has been enclosed with the case. e. Provision of R.D. Act has been violated by petitioner by erecting a commercial complex on portion of land adjacent to the main road leading to Gogji Bagh, Jawahar Nagar, so the said land is required for public purposes. f. Land is recorded as State land and in Khana Kasht, it is recorded as Maqboza Stadium of Jammabandi 1992-93 which depicts that it is required for public purposes in accordance with Section 8(d) of Roshni Act. 5. Response to compliance report has been filed by petitioner. He states that a big patch of land comprising survey no.S36 situated at Wazir Bagh, Srinagar, being a State land partly has been in possession of two persons and petitioner, the measurements of which have been given in documents already annexed with contempt petition and petitioner has been in possession of 06 Marl as 15 sft, which was regularised by virtue of Government order dated 12th June 1973, but despite his repeated attempts to deposit the cost of the said land, petitioner was tossed from one office to another. It is also averred that petitioner had 7 marlas 257 sft. Others had been considered but petitioner dragged. According to petitioner, the plea taken that petitioner failed to pay approved amount in terms of Government order of 1976 and approached the Chief Minister for revision of rates, is only half-truth and fact of the matter is that petitioner, after applying for revision of rates, volunteered to pay fixed amount without any revision and in this behalf even served legal notice but no action was taken. Petitioner controverts the stand taken by respondents in compliance report. He states that in para (iii) of the report respondents have taken the plea that Survey No.836 is recorded as State Maqbooza Stadium and further stated in para (iv) that petitioner is seeking regularisation of 16 MarIas while as he is in possession of 14 marlas and while stating so he has suppressed the fact that 06 marlas 15 sft have been already regularised by the Government almost all 39 years ago in his favour for which only the payment fixed then is to be paid and received by SDA, which they have been avoiding for none of the fault of petitioner. With regard to remaining 07 marlas and 257 it is submitted by petitioner that he has been seeking under Roshni Act, regularisation under the same analogy and rates, which have been charged from other similarly situated persons, whose lands are absolutely adjacent to petitioner’s land under survey no.836. Petitioner insists that when revenue entries consistently show right from the year 1978 petitioner being in possession, how come Girdawari of 2004 does not reflect the said position, when throughout this period revenue department has been showing petitioner in possession as encroacher and that Patwari concerned should have been asked for this lapse who is supposed to maintain the proper record as it exists on spot keeping in view the spot inspection reports of all revenue officials including Tehsildar which fortifies the facts that petitioner continues to be in possession from times immemorial. Petitioner maintains that petitioner had affixed Rs.10/- stamp which in process must have got detached from application, yet for Rs.10/- he could not have risked his interests involved in the case and at the most could have been asked to pay Rs.10/- stamp again. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and considered the matter. 7. Instant motion is for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for non-implementation and disobedience of order dated 30th September 2013, passed in OWP n01534/2012. This Court, while disposing of writ petition (OWP No.1534/2012) at its threshold, directed respondents to accord consideration to petitioner’s claim and take a decision in the matter in accordance with rules. Respondents, in their compliance report, filed on 29.01.2016, have given the whole picture of subject-matter of writ petition, including steps taken by respondents as regards implementation of order dated 30th September 2013 passed in OWP No.1534/2012. 8. The direction has been carried out by the respondents, who have considered the case of petitioner and some conditions, that according to respondents are required to be cleared by petitioner, have not been fulfilled by him and therefore, the consideration, as directed by this Court in terms of aforesaid order, has been accorded to the case of petitioner. Petitioner, in Response to Compliance Report, has disputed the stand of respondents. 9. Submission and counter-submission of parties would take this Court to the conclusion that it would be relevant for petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by challenging the action(s) of respondents, of which he is aggrieved. Petitioner, in Response to Compliance Report, has disputed the stand of respondents. 9. Submission and counter-submission of parties would take this Court to the conclusion that it would be relevant for petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by challenging the action(s) of respondents, of which he is aggrieved. It is pertinent to mention here that there are cases in which even if a technical breach is proved and the respondent had mens rea, the court will nonetheless dismiss the application. For contempt proceedings to be instituted there must be something more involved than a mere technicality. In the words of Arlidge Eady and Smith “the process of contempt should not be invoked in aid of a civil remedy where some other method of achieving the desired result is available” (Adam Phones v. Goldschmidt, (1999) 4 All ER 486. 10. This Court, in contempt proceedings, cannot go beyond proceedings available under contempt and open another branch of proceedings, which is beyond the scope of contempt proceedings. Reliance in this regard is made to Lalith Mathur vs. L. Maheshwara Rao, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 285, wherein the Supreme Court has held that in view of consideration accorded by respondents, further directions in contempt proceedings will be without jurisdiction. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of the said judgement hereunder: “3. The above will show that the High Court has directed the State Government to absorb the respondent against a suitable post either in a government department or in any public sector undertaking. This order, in our opinion, is wholly without jurisdiction and could not have been made in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution. 4. The High Court in the writ petition had issued a direction for the consideration of the respondent’s representation by the State Government. This direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Article 226, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings which did not lie as the order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits.” 11. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Article 226, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings which did not lie as the order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits.” 11. It may not be out of place to mention here that if the petitioner feels that the consideration accorded by respondents is not in accordance to the intent or desire of the Court or otherwise illegal and arbitrary, the same can only be challenged before the appropriate forum. In various cases, the Supreme Court has held that the Contempt Court cannot go into the merit of the order. Various grounds raised by the learned senior counsel for petitioner to submit that the consideration accorded to the case of petitioner is bad in law required consideration and adjudication, which can only be done by the appropriate Court and not by this Court in contempt proceedings. 13. It is well settled that when the court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding of an authority to whom direction is given, therefore, mere error of judgment with regard to legal position does not constitute contempt of Court. There is no willful disobedience if the best efforts are made to comply with the court order. 14. Further to point out here that the Court in Contempt jurisdiction has to consider only whether the direction or judgment of the Court passed in regular proceeding, has been complied with or not. It cannot go beyond the directions contained in the order, disobedience whereof is complained. Whether the authority rightly passed the order or considered the case of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Court or procedure adopted is correct, is not the matter to be seen by the Court dealing with contempt matter. For that purpose, it is open to the aggrieved person to approach the Court in regular proceedings by filing a fresh writ petition etc.. 15. Thus the contempt court cannot review or revise the order issued or consideration accorded by the authorities in consequence of an order passed by a court of law. For that purpose, it is open to the aggrieved person to approach the Court in regular proceedings by filing a fresh writ petition etc.. 15. Thus the contempt court cannot review or revise the order issued or consideration accorded by the authorities in consequence of an order passed by a court of law. After passing of the order or consideration accorded by the contemnor, a fresh cause of action would arise for aggrieved party to seek its judicial review. Merely because the consideration accorded by contemnor, in deference to order passed by a court of law is illegal, cannot be considered to be in willful violation of the order of the court. Once the High Court in writ jurisdiction issues a direction to consider the representation made by a litigant which the Government/authority rejects on merits, the litigant is required to file a fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenge consideration accorded by the Government/authority. The said litigant cannot take recourse to contempt proceedings, which would not lie because order passed by the writ court, had already been complied with by the Government/authority. As this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, will not be in a position to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order or consideration accorded and/or pass writ of mandamus, to issue other directions to respondents. 15. In view of the above said facts, applicant cannot derive any benefit on the basis of arguments that in similar circumstances benefit has been given to other persons, who are similarly situated to the petitioner. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the contempt petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 17. Notice issued, is discharged. 18. However, it is made clear that it will be open to petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances under law.