JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of court for violating the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.20597 and 20598 of 2021 on the file of this Court.) Common Order Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ. 1. The contempt petitions have been filed alleging noncompliance of the directions given by this Court in para 5 of the order. For ready reference, para 5 of the order is quoted hereunder:- " 5. The challenge to the notices in Form-III has been made in regard to the land purchased by the petitioners. The title document of the land has not been produced or shown to claim right of possession. According to the respondents, there is an encroachment in the waterbody. Therefore, action has been rightly initiated by the respondents. In view of the facts given above, we do not find any ground to question the notices in Form-III. However, the respondents would proceed further to remove the encroachments after demarcation of waterbody, which would be completed by 31.01.2022. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that without demarcation, the construction raised by the petitioners has been demolished, thus, the directions given by this Court have been violated. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the contemnors disputed the allegation and submitted that it is only after demarcation of the waterbody that the encroachment made by the petitioners was removed. The fact about demarcation of the boundaries of waterbody was narrated even in the writ petitions by submitting an affidavit and therefore, contempt is not made out. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land on which they have raised construction was not part of the waterbody, rather it was away from the boundaries of waterbody and thereby, the demarcation of the land was not properly made. 5. We have considered the submissions and find that the scope of contempt petitions is quite limited. So far as the directions contained in para 5 are concerned, the respondents have complied because it is not only demarcation of the land of waterbody has been made, but finding encroachment therein, it was removed. 5. We have considered the submissions and find that the scope of contempt petitions is quite limited. So far as the directions contained in para 5 are concerned, the respondents have complied because it is not only demarcation of the land of waterbody has been made, but finding encroachment therein, it was removed. If, according to the petitioners, demarcation was not properly made and thereby the land on which they were in possession was not falling under the boundaries of waterbody, they can take the remedy in accordance with law, but the aforesaid cannot be considered while hearing a contempt petition because of limited jurisdiction, as held by the Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 . The contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will not close the right of the petitioners to challenge the action of the respondents, if the demarcation is to be challenged so as the further action. Consequently, Sub Application Nos.68 and 69 of 2022 are closed.