1. In this petition for Contempt of Court, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had violated the order of status quo granted by this Court on 18.12.2001. 2. A perusal of order dated 18.12.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 3441/1998 would show that the petitioner/applicant had filed an application under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act for being declared as bhumidar and in cultivatory possession of a piece of land about which he filed the petition. 3. A notification had been issued by the Government whereby uncultivated land belonging to the Gaon Sabha was directed to be vested in the Forest Department of NCT, Delhi. This Court observed that it would be appropriate that decision on the application of the petitioner under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reform Act was awaited and adjourned the petition sine die observing that interim order shall continue. The interim order was passed by this Court on 19th November, 1998 whereby this Court had directed the status quo as on that day would be maintained with regard to the land. 4. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents, Deputy Conservator of Forest and Commanding Officer of 132 Infantry Battalion had violated the order of status quo. He filed certain photographs. From the photographs, it is clear that the land was a barren land. The petitioners claim of being in cultivatory possession was a baseless claim. This Courts order of maintaining status quo does not mean that petitioner was allowed to make construction on the forest land. The photographs show that there was a room in the jungle and this room was standing in isolation in a vast area of uncultivated barren land. 5. It is settled law that in case of a vacant land, the possession goes by the title. If the application of the petitioner under Section 85 of Delhi Land Reform Act for declaring bhumidar is allowed, the petitioner would become bhumidar of the land. Merely removing of an unauthorized construction in a forest would not make any difference in regard to status quo. The petitioners contention that status quo was violated has no meaning. The land is not a cultivable land. Nothing was growing in the land except some wild trees and shrubs. The petitioner had no right to put an unauthorized construction in a forest. The petitioners contention that status quo was violated has no meaning. The land is not a cultivable land. Nothing was growing in the land except some wild trees and shrubs. The petitioner had no right to put an unauthorized construction in a forest. Removal of the unauthorized construction does not amount to violation of status quo regarding cultivation and possession. 6. I find that this Contempt Petition is baseless and is hereby dismissed.