P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J:

1. Whether dismissal of an appeal preferred by the State against the declaration given by the Forest Tribunal, that the property is not a ‘private forest’ vested with the Government and the failure, if any, on the part of the Government/Department to restore possession, will by itself give rise to a cause of action to proceed against the respondent(s)/State by way of Contempt of Court, is the primary point to be considered in these cases.

Whether non-implementation of the ‘Undertaking’ given before the Court will constitute an offence of contempt always, irrespective of the circumstances under which such Undertaking was given, is the next point to be answered.

Will the non-compliance with the ‘Undertaking’ give rise to any ‘Criminal contempt’ is the further point to be considered in COC (CRL.)2/2011-Suo motu.

Whether initiation of such Suo Motu contempt as per the order dated ’30.03.2011’ in respect of the alleged breach of Undertaking dated ’03.04.2006’ is permissible to be pursued further, in view of statutory bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is the fourth question to be dealt with.

If the non-compliance is by virtue of the subsequent developments or by virtue of the operation of law, will it attract the offence of contempt, is the last point to be clarified.

2. COC.(C) No.1484 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience in respect of non-implementation of the judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by this Court in MFA.120 of 1998, whereas COC (Crl.) No.2/2011 is in respect of the violation of the Undertaking given on 03.04.2006.

3. When COC.(C) No.1484 of 2005 came up for consideration before this Court on 03.04.2006, the submission made on behalf of the respondent/s that steps were being pursued to hand over the actual physical possession of the property which required four months’ time, was recorded and the matter was closed on that day. alleging violation of the said undertaking, I.A.No.3515 of 2006 was filed by the beneficiaries, which was closed on 18.09.2006, on the basis of the contents of the letter dated 15.09.2006 issued by the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Custodian of Vested Forests, Olavakkod, Palakkad and the submission made by the learned Government Pleader reporting compliance. Later, I.A. 3573 of 2006 was filed by the beneficiaries pointing out that the compliance reported on 18.09.2006 (referring to the letter dated 15.09.2006) was not actually correct, as the property intended to be restored was only an abysmally low extent, thus seeking to re-open the contempt proceedings.

4. A detailed affidavit was filed from the part of the respondent/s in the said I.A., pointing out that a substantial extent of the property had been subsequently notified by the Government under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EFL’ Act), whereby such extent came to be vested with the Government by virtue of Section 3(1) of the said Act. The balance available was only 4.7603 hectares, which was already restored, as per the order dated 15.09.2006; but the same was refused to be accepted by the beneficiaries, for which the respondent/s cannot be found fault with.

5. Observing that the notification under the EFL Act was only in respect of 25 hectares out of the total 40.737 hectares (equivalent to about 100.06 acres) to be restored, the Bench observed that, even if the said extent of 25 hectares was excluded, the balance of about 15 hectares (approximately about 40 acres) had actually to be restored, as against the proposed extent of 4.7603 hectares. Accordingly, the Bench arrived at a prima facie finding on 07.12.2006, that the respondent/s had committed an act of contempt and ordered personal presence of the respondent/s on the next date, i.e. on 10.01.2007.

6. On 10.01.2007, an order was passed by the Bench, in contin