IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 249 of 2004 1. Madhvanand Tiwari (since deceased) S/o Sri Tika Ram R/o Village- Kohlikulari Purnagiri, Post Office- Kotkendriya District- Champawat. 1/1 Mahesh Tiwari 1/2 Kishan Tiwari 1/3 Narain Dutt Tiwari 1/4 Ghanshyam Tiwari All sons of Madhvanand Tiwari 2. Harish Chandra Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Dutt R/o Village – Kohlikulari District- Champawat …..Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Naresh Kumar Divisional Forest Officer Champawat Forest Range District- Champawat 2. Raj Mani Pandey D.F.O., Champawat ………..Respondents Shri S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This contempt petition is moved, complaining the disobedience of the court’s order dated 03.03.2004, passed in writ petition No. 99 of 2002 (M/B). The operative portion of said order, reads as under:- “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by this court in writ petition no. 617 (M/S) 2002 within a period of six weeks from the date of filing the certified copy of this order.” 2. Before aforesaid order, it is categorically mentioned in the judgment that land in question belonged to the petitioners and earlier his application for permission to cut the trees was rejected only on the ground that land did not belonged to the petitioners. The said dispute appears to have been decided right up to the Supreme Court, holding that the land belonged to the petitioners. Copy of order dated 02.04.2004, passed in Special Leave Petition, dismissing the same by the Supreme Court, confirms the judgment and order dated 11.06.2003, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 617 of 2002. It appears that after the contempt petition was moved, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that the application has been considered and rejected. Thereafter when the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer- Champawat, was directed to appear in person in the court on 14.12.2004, another bench of this court directed that concerned authority will give the permission to cut the dry trees after demarcation within a period of three weeks. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they failed to demarcate the land. On this, on 09.02.2005, Court again directed the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat to company with the direction of the court’s order or to remain present in the next date. It appears that thereafter a letter dated 18.11.2005, was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat, asking the Divisional Manager, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation, Tanakpur to cut the trees and hand over its custody to the petitioner. However, in the endorsement made to the petitioner, it was mentioned that he would keep the trees in custody and cannot dispose of the logs till the demarcation is over. Even till today, the Divisional Forest Officer has failed to explain that why the demarcation has not been made so far. As such, it amounts circumventing the court’s order by granting permission to save his skin from the clutches of the contempt of the court and putting a condition whereby fruit of the order, passed by the court may not be given to the petitioner. At this stage, the respondent- Divisional Forest Officer, undertakes that he would withdraw the condition imposed in the aforesaid letter. In view of said undertaking, the petitioner would be entitled to dispose of the logs, regarding which permission was granted to him. In para-5 of the supplementary affidavit, filed by Shri Raj Mani Pandey, Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat dated 19.12.2005, it has been stated clearly that the permission to cut the trees and the direction that it would be handed over to legal heirs, have already been given on 04.12.2005. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioners will be now at liberty to dispose of the logs regarding which he was given permission to cut trees. The contempt petition is dismissed and notices are discharged. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 9th March, 2006 Sweta