Short answer. Re-entry after a court-ordered dispossession is indirect contempt of court. Rule 71, Section 3 expressly covers a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected by judgment or court process, re-enters the property, induces another to enter, or disturbs the possession given to you. The remedy is a written contempt charge, heard by the court.
What the law says
including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto
Rule 71, Section 3 — Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Read the full provision →
The Rules name this exact situation
Among the acts punishable as indirect contempt, Rule 71, Section 3 lists disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court — and then spells out your scenario in particular: the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property. Returning to land one was evicted from by court order is not a fresh property dispute; the Rules treat it as defiance of the court itself.
How far the provision reaches
The wording is deliberately wide. It reaches a completed re-entry, but also one who merely attempts it, and one who induces another to enter — sending relatives or workers onto the land instead of going personally does not escape the provision. The purpose element covers entry for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, and there is a catch-all besides: a person who in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto. The measure is the possession the court awarded you, and conduct aimed at undoing it is what the rule punishes.
Contempt has its own process
Indirect contempt is not punished on the spot. The section requires that a charge in writing has been filed, that the respondent be given an opportunity to comment within the period the court fixes, and that the respondent be heard by himself or counsel before any punishment. So the path runs through the court that gave you possession: the re-entry is put before it in writing, the other side answers, and the court decides after hearing. The same section adds that nothing in it prevents the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.
What to do, and what not to do
Do not answer re-entry with self-help: forcing the person out yourself invites a confrontation and can generate complaints against you, when the law already provides a court-driven remedy. Instead, document what happened — dates of the re-entry, photographs, the names of those who entered or were sent in — and bring the record to your lawyer along with the ejectment judgment and the papers showing possession was delivered to you. That documentation is the substance of the written charge, and the sooner it is filed, the sooner the court can act on the defiance of its own judgment.