- (1.) ON 20th January, 2014 the following order was passed: "Pursuant to the order dated 9.12.2013, Sri Raj Shekhar, District Magistrate, Allahabad (opposite party no.1) is present. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has filed an affidavit of compliance duly sworn by the opposite party party no.1. Alongwith the affidavit of compliance is annexed an order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the opposite party no.1, rejecting the claim of the applicant. Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2012, passed in Writ Petition No.58437 of 2012, filed by the applicants disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the petitioners therein to submit a comprehensive representation to the Collector, Allahabad alongwith certified copy of the order which was to be considered by the Collector, Allahabad either himself or by any other competent officer duly authorized by him, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks of the filing of the same. The said directions of the Division Bench were submitted before the Collector, Allahabad. However when the orders were not complied with the applicants preferred contempt application. By order dated 23.10.2013 the Contempt Court disposed of the contempt application granting further time to the Collector, Allahabad to take an appropriate decision within a further period of four weeks. When despite the said order the orders were not complied with present contempt application was filed in which notices were issued and personal appearance of the opposite party no.1 was directed. The applicants' claim was that their appeal under Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 had been allowed vide judgment and order of Additional District Judge dated 15.11.2002 and it was held that they did not possess any surplus vacant land. The said order was not being incorporated in the revenue records despite repeated request of the applicants whereupon they filed writ petition. By the order dated 3.1.2014 the Collector, Allahabad has rejected the request of the applicants for recording their names in the revenue records pursuant to the order dated 15.11.2002, on the ground that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the ceiling appeal as such the order was without jurisdiction. The order further refers to legal opinion given by the District Government Counsel which was otherwise based upon a Government Order dated 24.02.1978, and also a notification issued by the Central Government dated 15.07.1976 whereby for District Allahabad, the Appellate Authority was defined as District Judge. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that in view of the order passed by the Collector the directions of the writ Court having been complied with, this contempt application does not require any further consideration as such the application be consigned to record after discharging the notice. On the other hand learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the order has been passed on a completely wrong premise as the expression District Judge includes the Additional District Judge also and after the Ceiling appeal has been decided by the Additional District Judge, it could not be said that the same was without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon Article 236 of the Constitution of India. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court dated 8.5.2012 passed in First Appeal From Order No.553 of 1985, N. Ahmad versus D.N. Bakshi. In the said case the Court was considering the question with regard to the Motor Vehicle Act and designation of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as to whether it would include the Additional District Judge also in addition to the District Judge. TheCourt held that in view of Article 236 of the Constitution the Additional District Judge would also be included within the expression District Judge. List this matter on 11.02.2014. In the meantime the opposite party may reconsider the matter after taking due opinion from the Chief Standing Counsel and in case the opinion is same as given by the District Government Counsel the order shall remain as it has been passed. In case the opinion is otherwise fresh orders may be passed accordingly."
(2.) TODAY Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, upon instructions received has submitted that the Chief Standing Counsel has given his opinion, favouring the order passed by the District Magistrate.
(3.) IN that view of the matter proper course now open to the applicant is to assail its correctness in appropriate proceedings as the contempt Court may be hesitant in adjudicating upon the said order. The contempt application does not require any further consideration. Notices are discharged.;