IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.928 of 2008 1. Bipin Kumar Singh s/o late Tej Narayan Singh resident of Village – Chhitrour, P.S. Mathihani, District – Begusarai … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sanjeev Hans, the Collector, District – Begusarai 3. Tulsi Hazra, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Begusarai 4. Nawal Kishore, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Begusarai …Respondents For the appellant: Mr. Vivekanand Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondent nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG – III Mr. Binita Singh, JC to AAG -III P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 26th November, 2008 This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 21st October, 2008, whereby the Single Judge has disposed of the contempt application by observing that there was substantial compliance of the order dated 11th April, 2007. 2. The counsel for the appellant would submit that while dealing with the application for contempt, the Single Judge has, in fact, modified the earlier order dated 11th April, 2007 passed in the writ petition and this was not permissible and, therefore, this letters patent appeal is maintainable. He would also submit that the order dated 11th April, 2007 remains to be complied with by the authority and, therefore, 2 the action ought to have been taken against the respondents for disobedience /non-compliance of the order dated 11th April, 2007. 3. We are afraid, the contentions of the counsel for the appellant do not deserve to be accepted. The ultimate conclusion of the Single Judge in the order dated 21st October, 2008 while disposing of the contempt application, is that there has been substantial compliance of the order dated 11th April, 2007 and, therefore, the opposite party cannot be held to be guilty of having violated the order of this court. We have no justifiable reason to hold otherwise. 4. Merely because some observations have been made by the Single Judge in the impugned order giving liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Collector for claim of damages, it cannot be said that the Single Judge has modified or reviewed the earlier order dated 11th April, 2007. 5. A contempt proceedings is not a lis between the two parties. It is a matter between the court and the contemnor. Once the court is satisfied that its order has been substantially complied with and that no further action in the matter is needed, we are of the view, the matter should end there. 6. In our considered view, the letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Neyaz/- Kishore K. Mandal, J. 3