- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Malaviya, Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) BY the order dated 31st October, 1986, a copy whereof is Annexure 'a to the petition, the Sub- Division Officer, Koil Aligarh Prescribed Authority, under the U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945, hereinafter called the ; Act', exercising powers of Collector, has called upon the petitioner to remove pucca construction made by him within the controlled area in contravention of the Act. Placing reliance upon Section 13 (2) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order inasmuch as under the Act it is only the Collector who has the power. The submission of the learned counsel is misconceived. Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Act provides that the expression 'collector' includes authority appointed by the State Government, by notification in the official Gazette, to perform all or any of the functions of the Collector under this Act.
(3.) ALONGWITH the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents a photo copy of the Notification dated 30th December, 1976 published in the U. P. Gazette dated 5th February, 1977 is annexed as Annexure C. A. II. By this notification, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Koil, Aligarh, the respondent No. 2, who has passed the order, has been appointed to perform all the functions of the Collector, Aligarh under the Act. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 did not lack competence to pass the impugned order. No other point has been raised in support of the petition.;