ORDER : 1. Since the base and origin of these three Contempt Petitions is one and the same being the impugned Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999 (Rajesh Dhody Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and the Petitioner in these Contempt Petitions also being the same person, these three Contempt Petitions were clubbed together, heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common Order. 2. The Petitioner was granted lease for mining minor mineral over the subject land on 7.8.1997. He filed W.P. No.584/1998 on the ground that the area over where he was granted mining lease was encroached by some private persons, which stood disposed of by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 30.4.1998 (Annexure C-1 in CP No.435/2015) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Collector, Durg indicating that there was no encroachment on the lease area and assuring that the area covered under the lease deed is not encroached upon by any private individual. However, since the grievance of the Petitioner was still not redressed, he again went into filing another writ petition being W.P. No.1170/1998 on the ground that Respondents No.1 to 3 therein were interfering with his mining operation and the Madhya Pradesh High Court also disposed of the said writ petition vide Order dated 31.3.1999 (Annexure C-2 in CP No.435/2015) observing that if a complaint is made to the Collector and he in turn refuses to take action, the Petitioner can certainly make a complaint against the Collector for his non-action, but not before filing a complaint before the Collector and the Petitioner would be free to ventilate his grievance before the Collector and if such application is filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Collector in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Petitioner again moved a writ petition being W.P. No.5190/1999 and this time the grievance of the Petitioner was that though he had made a complaint before the Collector, but the authorities had failed to remove the encroachment over the leased out mining area within the radius of 300 metre as per the statutory mandate fixed. Subsequently, the Petitioner again moved a writ petition being W.P. No.5190/1999 and this time the grievance of the Petitioner was that though he had made a complaint before the Collector, but the authorities had failed to remove the encroachment over the leased out mining area within the radius of 300 metre as per the statutory mandate fixed. This Court ultimately vide Order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure C-3 in CP No.435/2015) allowed the said writ petition directing the Respondent authorities to remove all the encroachments made within the radius of 300 meters within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the said Order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Order dated 16.1.2006, the State moved an unsuccessful Review Petition No.37/2006 to be dismissed on 4.3.2014 and therefore they chose to file W.A. No.191/2014 which also proved to be unsuccessful to them as it was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure C-5 in CP No.435/2015) holding it as frivolous. This gave another reason to the State to move ahead to the Supreme Court in SLP (CC) No.15678/2015 which also did not give expected result to the State as it also stood dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide Order dated 31.8.2015. 3. Meanwhile, the Petitioner had also filed Contempt Petition No.139/2006 for non-compliance of Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999. Another Contempt Petition No.435/2015 was also filed by the Petitioner raising the grievance that instead of complying with the Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999, he was served with a Show-Cause-Notice dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure C-6 in CP No.435/2015) which is absolutely illegal and without authority of law and amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed by the Court. Subsequently, one more Contempt Petition No.59/2016 was preferred by the Petitioner on the ground that though Writ Appeal and the SLP filed by the State both have been dismissed, the Petitioner was issued with a Show-Cause-Notice dated 2.7.2015 against which Contempt Petition No.435/2015 has been filed but after receipt of the notice of the said Contempt Petition, the Respondents-Contemnors again issued a contemptuous Notice dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure C-9 in CP No.59/2016). 4. Mr. 4. Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that though this Court had passed the Order dated 16.1.2006 in W.P. No.5190/1999 directing the Respondent authorities to remove all the encroachments made within the radius of 300 meters of the boundaries of leased out mining area within one month and against the said Order, the Writ Appeal as well as the SLP filed by the State both have been dismissed, yet the Order dated 16.1.2006 has not been complied with and it is one of the case in which ex-facie on the face of record it would appear that the Respondents- Contemnors are willfully disobeying the orders of this Court and lingering on the issue which stands concluded after the decision of the Supreme Court passed on 31.8.2015 dismissing the aforesaid SLP filed by the State. Therefore, the Respondents- Contemnors are liable to be punished. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re. : (1998) 7 SCC 248 , Chanchal Manohar Singh v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others : (1998) 8 SCC 481 , Income Tax Appellate Tribunal v. V.K. Agarwal and Another : (1999) 1 SCC 16 , Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and Another : (1999) 6 SCC 18 , Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another : (2000) 2 SCC 367 and S. K. Sundaram : In Re. : (2001) 2 SCC 171 . 5. Ex-adverso, Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondent-Contemnor, submit that in order to comply with the Order dated 16.1.2006 passed in W.P. No.5190/1999, the Collector (Mining Branch), Durg, by his Order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure R-1 in CP No.435/2015) had directed the Tahsildar, Dhamdha, District Durg to initiate appropriate proceeding for removal of all the encroachments made within the radius of 300 meters of the boundaries of leased out mining area, in view of Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Durg submitted his report dated 22.4.2016 (Annexure R-2 in CP No.435/2015) apprising that proceeding under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been initiated against 178 encroachers and notices were also issued to them on 1.6.2016 (Annexure R-3 in CP No.435/2015). Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Durg submitted his report dated 22.4.2016 (Annexure R-2 in CP No.435/2015) apprising that proceeding under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been initiated against 178 encroachers and notices were also issued to them on 1.6.2016 (Annexure R-3 in CP No.435/2015). However, some of the encroachers filed W.P.C. No.1420/2016 and other connected Writ Petitions against the aforesaid notice issued to them under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and this Court by Order dated 9.6.2016 (Annexure R-4 in CP No.435/2015) granted interim protection in favour of the said encroachers directing the Respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against them as per notice dated 1.6.2016, the information of which was provided by the Tahsildar, Durg to the Collector (Mining Branch), Durg by his memo dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure R-5 to CP No.435/2015). In that view of the matter, the eviction could not be done and as such there is no willful disobedience on the part of the Respondents-Contemnors towards compliance of the orders passed by this Court. In support of their contentions, the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others : (2014) 16 SCC 204 has been relied on by them. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the aforesaid factual scenario of the case, it is quite vivid that the Petitioner was granted mining lease on 7.8.1997 for mining minor mineral over the subject land. However, since there was some encroachment made by certain private persons on the subject land, the Petitioner moved W.P. No.584/1998 and thereafter W.P. No.1170/1998 for redressal of his grievance. Ultimately, in W.P. No.5190/1999 moved by the Petitioner, this Court by Order 16.1.2006 directed the Respondents- Contemnors to remove all encroachments within 300 meters of the boundary of leased out mining area in appropriate proceeding as per law. Assailing the said Order dated 16.1.2006, W.A. No.191/2014 filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by its Order dated 26.11.2014 against which, the SLP (CC) No.15678/2015 filed by the State was also dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.8.2015. Accordingly, the Order dated 16.1.2006 attained its finality. Assailing the said Order dated 16.1.2006, W.A. No.191/2014 filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by its Order dated 26.11.2014 against which, the SLP (CC) No.15678/2015 filed by the State was also dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.8.2015. Accordingly, the Order dated 16.1.2006 attained its finality. Thereafter, proceeding under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was initiated by the Respondents-Contemnors for removal of encroachment and notices were issued to concerned persons who, however, challenged the notice dated 1.6.2016 in their W.P. No.1420/2016 and other connected Writ Petitions which were disposed of by this Court by Order dated 9.6.2016 granting interim protection in their favour directing the Respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against them as per notice dated 1.6.2016. In that view of the matter, the encroachment proceeding could not conclude. 8. Meanwhile, the Respondents - Contemnors informed that by way of Order dated 28.3.2016 issued by the State Government (Annexure R-6 in CP No.435/2015), in exercise of powers enshrined under Section 4A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read along with Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the lease deed for mining minor minerals over the subject land has been cancelled by the Competent Authority and that the Revision petition preferred by the Petitioner before the Union of India in that regard has also been dismissed on 13.3.2019. However, W.P.C. No.2796/2018 preferred by the Petitioner against the aforesaid Order of the State Government, dated 28.3.2016, is still pending consideration before this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the question is “whether the act of the Respondents- Contemnors in not complying with the orders of this Court can be said to be ‘willful disobedience’ as per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”. 10. In order to decide whether the respondents-contemnors are guilty of civil contempt, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:— “2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— xxx xxx xxx (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;” 11. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— xxx xxx xxx (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;” 11. The Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, at page 1599, defines “willful” as hereunder: "Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary. Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It is a word of many meanings, with its construction often influenced by its context. In civil actions, the word (willfully) often denotes an act which is intentional, or knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. But when used in a criminal context it generally means an act done with a bad purpose; without justifiable excuse; stubbornly, obstinately, perversely." 12. The Lexis Nexis's The Law of Contempt- Contempt of Courts and Legislatures, Sixth Edition, at page 277, para 5.32.11 – The disobedience was not wilful, very succinctly describes that disobedience of orders of the Court in order to constitute contempt must be willful, as this is an essential feature of the statutory definition in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act which defines civil contempt, as reproduced herein-above. 13. In the matter of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others(supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly defined the meaning of “willful disobedience” which excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability, by holding as under in paragraphs 11, 12 & 15:- “11. 13. In the matter of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others(supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly defined the meaning of “willful disobedience” which excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability, by holding as under in paragraphs 11, 12 & 15:- “11. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful 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., (1992) 4 SCC 697 ; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 530 ; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21 ; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 360 ; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705 ; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 60). 12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. The word ‘wilful’ 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. ‘Wilful’ means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful 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”. ‘Wilful’ means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful 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”. Wilful 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. v. V.R. Pattabiraman; (1985) 1 SCC 591 ; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 255 ; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 332 ; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282 ; M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 1 ; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 ; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753 ). *** *** *** 15. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. (See: Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), (2008) 14 SCC 392 ; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592 .” 14. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. (See: Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), (2008) 14 SCC 392 ; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592 .” 14. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the above-mentioned principle of law laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the Respondents-Contemnors, after the Order dated 16.1.2006 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.5190/1999 which become final after the above-mentioned SLP filed by the State assailing the same was dismissed by the Supreme court, proceeded to remove the encroachment over the subject land as per Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and also issued notices to the encroachers in that regard, as is evident from Annexures R-2 & R-3 to CP No.435/2015. However, as it appears from Annexures R-5 & R-6 to CP No.435/2015, an interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the encroachers in their writ petitions filed and consequently the encroachment proceeding could not be concluded by the Respondents- Contemnors. Meanwhile, the lease granted to the Petitioner over the subject land was cancelled as per Annexure R-6 dated 28.3.2016 issued by the State Government which is sub-judice before this Court. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Respondents-Contemnors have willfully disobeyed the Order dated 16.1.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5190/1999, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP filed by the State. 15. Thus, for the reasons stated above and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to continue with these contempt proceedings. Therefore, the civil contempt proceedings are dropped against the Respondents-Contemnors. 16. So far as the decisions cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner are concerned, this Court finds that those judgments are factually distinguishable from the current case and hence not applicable to the present case. 17. In the result, all the three Contempt Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. 18. Rule nisi stands discharged.