JUDGMENT : A.S.Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioners’ society is before us in this intra-Court appeal assailing the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3196/2012. The petitioners were before the learned Single Judge assailing the order/notice dated 21.6.2012 whereby the petitioners were ordered to demolish their structures standing over the land referred to in the order since the said land is an area covered under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (‘Act, 1972’ for short). The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration that the structures exist in the Wild Life Protection Area and in that light, having taken note of the order dated 16.8.1989 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the intra party Civil Appeal No.421/1980, has disposed of the writ petition directing consideration of the feasibility to provide alternate land to the petitioners. However, the learned Single Judge did not find it appropriate to interfere with the order dated 21.6.2012 which was impugned. The petitioners, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved, have preferred this appeal. 2. In that light, we have heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. TC Chutia, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the appeal papers. 3. The undisputed position is that at an earlier point when action was taken against the persons claiming to be the members of the first petitioner’s society to evict them from the land which formed a part of the Wild Life Protection Area, the petitioners had approached this Court and an order dated 14.6.1979 was passed by this Court as at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. The respondent State claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.421/1980. In the said proceedings, on consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had disposed of the petition through the order dated 16.8.1989. It had taken note of its earlier order dated 15.11.1988 whereby the appellants herein were directed to apply for alternate land to the appropriate authority and further directed the authority and the State Govt. to consider the feasibility of allotting alternate land to the respondents. In that view, it was of the opinion that the said Civil Appeal No.421/1980 did not require consideration on merits and dismissed the appeal. to consider the feasibility of allotting alternate land to the respondents. In that view, it was of the opinion that the said Civil Appeal No.421/1980 did not require consideration on merits and dismissed the appeal. However, further observation was made which reads as hereunder: “Since on account of the pendency of the appeal, the respondents have not pursued their remedies under the Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972, they are given six months time to pursue the remedies under the Act and seek allotment of alternate land for their residence and cultivation. The State of Assam will consider the claim of the respondents for allotment of alternate land within the said period of six months and pass orders. Till then status quo as of today shall be maintained. It is hoped that the State of Assam will be able to rehabilitate the respondents in a satisfactory manner. No costs.” 5. The extracted portion indicates that the entire basis for all subsequent consideration can only be to the limited extent of the right as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. From the same, there can be no quarrel with the position that the members of the petitioners’ society cannot continue in the Wild Life Protection Area. However, the State was also required to consider allotment of alternate land and till such time, it was ordered that the parties should maintain status quo. 6. The grievance of the appellants is that no alternate allotment of land has been made by the respondents and in that view, the status quo is required to be maintained. It is, in that light, contended that the order dated 21.6.2012 which was assailed before the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and the same ought to have been quashed. To that extent, though the case of the appellants may appear justified, the appellants cannot also absolve themselves of the blame, inasmuch as, the appellants have not been diligent in prosecuting their request for consideration for alternate allotment of land by genuinely putting forth the details to justify their claim. Even at the time of hearing of this appeal, the details of the applications made pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.421/1980 is not brought forth by the appellants nor by the respondents to indicate the nature of consideration that was made. Even at the time of hearing of this appeal, the details of the applications made pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.421/1980 is not brought forth by the appellants nor by the respondents to indicate the nature of consideration that was made. In that circumstances, all that is necessary to be considered herein is to see that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is complied in its true spirit and without creating any other additional rights. 7. If that be the position, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 16.8.1989 had referred to the fact that the appellants’ society was directed through the order dated 15.11.1988 to make application for alternate land, the position with regard to the actual number of members of the appellants’ society and the persons who are actually in possession at this point of time, would not be material. What is to be ascertained is the actual number of members of the society that had been enrolled prior to 15.11.1988 and only such of those members were in actual physical possession as on that day and have continued to remain in possession even as on today, such of the persons claiming benefit under such right alone would be entitled to for consideration. 8. In that view, only to that extent, we find it appropriate to protect the interest of the appellants and at the same time, ensure that the respondents also take necessary steps to protect the Wild Life Protection Area. 9. Hence, in order to ensure these aspects and to see that the parties adhere to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellants’ society is granted the benefit of filing a representation enclosing the documents to indicate the number of members as on 15.11.1988 and to further indicate that as on such date, such of those members who were in possession of the Wild Life Protection Area, which is the subject matter. Such details shall be furnished within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The representation with the details shall be submitted to the respondent Nos.2 and 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein shall arrange for spot verification by the competent officers, overseen by the respondent Nos.2 and 4. Such details shall be furnished within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The representation with the details shall be submitted to the respondent Nos.2 and 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein shall arrange for spot verification by the competent officers, overseen by the respondent Nos.2 and 4. Sufficient publicity shall be given in the Wild Life Protection Area with regard to such spot verification and in such spot verification, appropriate identification of the persons residing in the area shall be made with reference to the documents furnished by the appellants’ society indicating the membership of such persons with the appellants’ society on or prior to 15.11.1988. 11. In the said process, a list of the persons, who satisfy the requirement of having been a member of the appellants’ society as on 15.11.1988 and also being in possession as on 15.11.1988 and continuing to be in possession either by himself or his legally entitled successor in the case of demise, shall be made. In respect of such list prepared and finalised to indicate the right of the persons as on 15.11.1988, a consideration with regard to allotment of alternate land as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be made and appropriate orders shall be passed one way or the other in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of expiry of one month period granted to the appellants’ society to make representation along with the documents. In other words, the entire process of consideration shall be completed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It is made clear that if the appellants’ society does not furnish necessary details to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 within the time frame of one month as indicated above, they would not be able to make any further grievance in this regard nor they can claim any right. 13. In that view, until a consideration is made in terms of the above within the time frame as indicated herein, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to maintain the status quo shall also be adhered to. After the lapse of the period, based on the consideration made, further action is permitted. 14. In terms of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of.