The court emphasized that the State Government's conduct did not amount to deliberate or willful disobedience of the court's orders, and therefore, no contempt was committed.

Alpesh Y. Kogje, J.

1. The petitioners seek to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court contending that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions contained in oral order dated 12.06.2014 in LPA No. 2109 of 2009, which confirmed the oral judgment dated 25.01.2008 in SCA No. 6665 of 2009, which in turn confirmed the decision of the Secretary of Revenue Department, Gujarat State in regularizing unauthorized encroachment of the petitioners into the 'gauchar' land of village Kotda.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:-

2.1 The dispute revolves round portion of land (hereinafter to be referred as "the disputed land") admeasuring 1 acre and 12 gunthas of block No. 49 of village Kotda, Dist. Banaskantha, which according to the petitioners was under cultivation of the petitioners since 1972, though the petitioners were not the lawful owners of the land. Therefore, the Government treated it to be an encroachment of the petitioners on the disputed land.

2.2 As the petitioners believed it to be unintended encroachment and being of scheduled tribe, initiated procedure for getting their occupation on the encroached land regularized. Initially, by order dated 08.06.1993, the District Collector, Banaskantha rejected such application, which the petitioners carried in revision before the Revenue Secretary of the State Government by filing Revision Application No. 43 of 1993 and the Secretary by his order dated 26.11.1993 set aside the order of the Collector and further ordered for regularization of the encroachment by taking into consideration the relevant policies of the State Government, prevailing then.

2.3 It appears that pursuant to the order of the Secretary, the Collector issued notice calling upon the petitioners to show their willingness to make payment of specified amount, which later on came to be rejected by the Collector on the ground that the disputed land had potential to be used for non-agriculture purpose and hence, cannot be regularized for agriculture purpose. In revision, the order of the Collector was upheld. The petitioner was constrained to approach the High Court by filing SCA No. 6665 of 1999. This petition came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 25.01.2008, wherein the order dated 15.03.1999 and 25.04.1996, which were subsequent to the order dated 26.11.1993, were quashed and set aside. While allowing the petition, relevant observations made by the Court with regards to regularization of the encroachment are as under:-

"(9) .... Hence, till the point of time the first order dated 26.11.1993 was operational and was not either modified, disturbed or quashed either by a higher forum in appropriate proceedings or withdrawn, again in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, the said order dated 26.11.1993 had to be given effect to in entirety because that was the order made by the State Government. The Collector being a subordinate authority could not have travelled beyond the order made by the superior authority and hence, the order made by the Collector on 25.04.1996 could not have been made and the revisional authority vide impugned order dated 15.03.1999 could not have confirmed the said order. Therefore, the impugned order made by respondent No. 2 on 15.03.1999 and the order dated 25.04.1996 made by respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed and set aside."

2.4 It appears that this order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal by the State Government and in the LPA, the Division Bench, while confirming the order of the Single Judge, held as under:-

"4. In view of above, we are of the opinion, that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in holding that the Collector ought not to have disobeyed the order of the superior authority dated 26.11.1993. The view taken by learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the same. It will be open for the State to act as per the order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Depu