JUDGMENT Dipankar Datta, J. - This application for contempt was presented before this Court by the petitioner, Brij Ratan Mohta, alleging willful and deliberate violation of an order dated December 9, 2014 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of us (Arijit Banerjee, J.) was a member, while disposing of F.M.A. 3285 of 2013. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of WP 16514 (W) of 2013 had required the respondents in the appeal to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of premises nos. 3 and 4/1, Sarbamangala Lane, Kolkata (hereafter the said premises) to the petitioner within two weeks from date of communication thereof. For wrongful possession of the said premises, the respondents were further required to assess and pay damages to the petitioner at the current market rental rate with effect from April 1, 1997 until possession is delivered, within four weeks of its communication. It was made clear that in default of delivery of possession or payment of damages within the time stipulated therefor, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @10% per annum on the entire amount payable to the petitioner. 3. In appeal, the coordinate Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and held as follows: "We see no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent Authorities are obliged to pay compensation to the writ petitioner apart from handling back possession of the concerned premises to him. However, responsibility, for the omission in releasing the properties at an earlier date has to be shared by the 1st Acquisition Collector, Kolkata and the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority equally. Both the authorities are to be blamed for the situation and for necessarily and arbitrarily holding on to the property of the writ petitioner. The period for payment of compensation is extended by two months from date. The appellant is directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property in question in the same state and condition, as it was when possession thereof was taken from the writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from date". 4. The petitioner unfortunately passed away during the pendency of this application on January 11, 2020. His sons, surviving legal heirs, applied for substitution by filing CAN 612 of 2020. Such application was allowed by an order dated January 16, 2020. 4. The petitioner unfortunately passed away during the pendency of this application on January 11, 2020. His sons, surviving legal heirs, applied for substitution by filing CAN 612 of 2020. Such application was allowed by an order dated January 16, 2020. The sons of the deceased petitioner have since been brought on record. 5. We had heard this application for contempt, upon the same being assigned to us by an order of the Acting Chief Justice dated January 16, 2017, on several occasions. On behalf of the alleged contemnors /respondents, it was submitted before us that they are not in a position to comply with that part of the order dated December 09, 2014 requiring delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises in favour of the petitioner. 6. In course of hearing, the petitioner at one point of time had agreed to a proposal for direct purchase of the said premises provided certain conditions set by him were met. In view of such proposal, we had directed valuation of the said premises and in pursuance thereof, market assessment slips were generated from the system in vogue to assess value of properties. The petitioner during his life time has been paid in excess of Rs.5,75,00,000/- (five crores seventy five lakhs). Such payment was received by the petitioner without prejudice to his rights and contentions in this application. 7. At or about the time the proposal for direct purchase of the said premises was under consideration of the petitioner, an alternative argument had been advanced on his behalf for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 8. We could have insisted for strict compliance of the order dated December 09, 2014 by directing the alleged contemnors/respondents, notwithstanding the difficulties cited for non-compliance of the same, to any how deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises in favour of the petitioner. However, we exercised restraint and did not so direct keeping in view the possible ramifications of such order being implemented bearing in mind the version of the alleged contemnors/respondents as indicated in their affidavit. In fact, the petitioner also did not so insist and while being present in Court had submitted in person that he would be satisfied if he is adequately compensated for loss of his property by the alleged contemnors/respondents. 9. In fact, the petitioner also did not so insist and while being present in Court had submitted in person that he would be satisfied if he is adequately compensated for loss of his property by the alleged contemnors/respondents. 9. Having heard learned senior advocates representing the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General representing the alleged contemnors/respondents, we have no hesitation to record that impossibility to comply with an order passed by the Court, though could be raised as a defence in very exceptional circumstances, the present case does not appear to be one such case. However, having regard to the prayer of the petitioner, recorded above, it would be futile to record a finding of guilt and to draw up proceedings by issuance of rule as to why the alleged contemnors/respondents shall not be punished. We also record that whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act or under the direct purchase policy of the State is a question which cannot be examined by us in course of an action for civil contempt. Interest of justice would be better served if the following order is made. 10. We, accordingly, dispose of this application by granting liberty to the sons of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for enforcement of the provisions of the 2013 Act or the direct purchase policy of the State, as the case may be, in accordance with law. Needless to observe, if the appropriate forum is approached, the proceedings shall also be taken to its logical conclusion according to law. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.