Contempt case against forest officials dismissed

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking contempt of court proceedings against three forest officials for failing to restore forest land in Vythiry in Wayanad to its original owners.  The officials are Amarnath Shetty, Managing Director, Kerala Forest Development Corporation (KFDC), H Nagesh Prabhu, Chief Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry and N K Sasidharan, Chief Conservator of Forest and Custodian of Vested Forests,  Eastern Circle.Dismissing the petitions, the court said that no positive direction was given while dismissing an appeal filed by the State Government against the tribunal order to restore possession of the land. In the absence of any positive direction, it is  difficult to proceed with the contempt proceedings. The court also held that the petitioners had failed to establish violation of any direction or ‘legally reckonable undertaking’ to proceed with any act of contempt involving willful disobedience.A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice P R Ramachandra Menon dismissed the petitions filed by Sreedhara Menon and others. The petitioners submitted that the Kozhikode Forest Tribunal had declared that the 200-odd acres in the possession of Menon and others were not vested forest and ordered restoration of the land to them in 1998. The appeal filed by the government against the tribunal order had also been dismissed by the High Court. The petitioners also contended that violation of the undertaking given on behalf of the forest department that steps would be taken to hand over the forest land within four months also amounted to contempt of court.The Advocate-General submitted that there was no violation of any judgment or undertaking. He submitted that out of the total extent of 40 acres of property to be restored, 35 acres had been vested with the government under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act. The petitioners were only entitled to the remaining land. However, the petitioner refused to take over the land. In fact, the undertaking was only to finalise the ‘restoration proposal’ and not to have the 40 acres restored in four months.