(1.) In the instant contempt petition, the petitioners alleged violation of interim order passed by this Court on 30.01.2017 insofar it provided that petitioners shall not be dispossessed if not already dispossessed by the Department.
(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioners after passing of the interim order the petitioners came to be dispossessed.
(3.) In the Statement of facts filed by the respondents in opposition to the contempt petition, the respondents specifically contend that the petitioners had been dispossessed from the land in question before passing of the order of this Court dated 30.01.2017. It is being contended that the land in question had been taken over pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. The allegation of dispossession after the passing of the order is being denied.