MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that the respondent-contemners did not comply with the order of status quo granted by this Court on 13. 9. 99 and sought to forcibly dispossess him on 14. 9. 99 although he was in actual physical possession of the land in question. On this averment, a show cause notice was issued on the contempt petition directing the contemners herein to appear in person which they defied. Thereafter, this Court thought it proper to issue bailable warrants against the respondent-contemners, but on account of some procedural delay caused in the Registry the same could not be issued and ultimately a non bailable warrant was issued against the contemners by this Court which have now been served on them and the contemner No. 1 Bheru and No. 3 Durga Lal have been produced in this Court for not responding to the contempt notice. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Sonki who is the wife of contemner-respondent No. 1 Bheru, however, is not present in person, but has appeared through her advocate Shri Biri Singh. In view of the fact that husband of respondent No. 2 is present in this Court exemption is granted to respondent No. 2 Smt. Sonki from appearing in this Contempt Petition.
(2.) THE question now is required to be determined whether the respondents can be hauled-up for contempt of the order of this Court. It has been contended on behalf of the contemners that in so far as the bailable warrants are concerned, the same infact were not served on the contemners and the report of the process-server is disputed due to which they did not appear in this Court. However, since the contemners have now appeared, I do not deem it appro-priate to stretch this issue further. Thus, the question is whether the petitioner infact was in actual physical possession of the disputed property or it was the respondents-contemners who are infact in possession of the property even if that be as a trespasser. It has been asserted by the petitioner's advocate that infact the respondents-contemners have no right and title to the land in question nor they are in possession since the order of allotment was passed in favour of the petitioner, which has been cancelled. It is thus obvious that the remedy sought by the petitioner is against the competent authorities of the Government who have cancelled, the allotment. Under that situation, it is difficult to appreciate why the respondents-contemners have been impleaded as parties to this writ petition. If they are refusing to vacate the land forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the land in question the petitioner surely has alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance and for this purpose he is at liberty to take recourse to the remedies ennumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contempt petition, under the circumstances is dismissed. Notices stand discharged. .;