- (1.) Heard Sri. Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. R.N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1705 of 2017 (Jagdish Singh v. Shri. Sujeet Kumar, Collector/D.M. Shamli), whereby, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to institute such proceedings as may be permissible in law. Father of the applicant filed a petition being Writ-C No. 21773 of 2016 (Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of on 6.12.2016.
(3.) It appears that the order was not complied, consequently, contempt petition came to be filed. Learned single Judge disposed of the contempt petition by the impugned order, which reads thus: Pursuant to the last order the District Magistrate the opposite party has filed an affidavit. The issue itself arises in respect of a road which is stated to have been constructed in the year 2013-14. The writ Court in terms of its judgment rendered on 06.12.2016 had quashed an order dated 01.08.2016 purportedly issued under Section 3 of the Road Side Land Control Act, 1945. The District Magistrate in consequence was directed to calculate compensation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court on 09.01.2018 had proceeded to pass the following order :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri. K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The writ petition preferred by the applicant came to be disposed of by a Division Bench on 6 December, 2016 in the following terms:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the counter affidavit was not forthcoming, we had directed the District Magistrate to produce the original record. The original record has been placed before the Court and we do not find anything to indicate that the land of the petitioner was declared as a controlled area under Section 3 of the Road Side Land Control Act, 1945. Consequently, the question of violation of the provision of the said Act does not arise, since there no notification declaring the land as a controlled area. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Shamli cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The District Magistrate is directed to calculate the compensation within four weeks and release the same to the petitioner." During the course of the present proceedings, the District Magistrate has filed an affidavit dated 29 May, 2017 in purported compliance of the order of the Court. In the said affidavit, the District Magistrate has taken the stand that the applicant is in possession of 1.955 hectares of land land instead of 1.900 hectares which was the total area of plot No. 227. Further referring to the exercise undertaken by the State Highway Authority, the District Magistrate has submitted that although an acquisition exercise was undertaken, the same was ultimately dropped and not proceeded with. He states that after the State Highway Authority withdrew from the project of reconstruction of the road, the Public Works Department proceeded with the work of construction. He however states that during the course of this exercise, the petitioner's land was neither acquired nor was it utilized for construction of the metalled road. The applicant in his rejoinder affidavit has however raised the issue that the total area of land stated to be in his possession is incorrect and the discrepancy has arisen primarily because the opposite party has also included land comprised in plot No. 228. Be that as it may, the Court notes that the order dated 1 August, 2015 issued under the U.P. Roadside Land Control Act 1945 has been quashed by the Writ Court. Today, therefore, there is no material on the basis of which, the opposite party can hold that the applicant is in possession of land which belongs to the State. The direction of the Writ Court to calculate compensation and release the same in favour of the applicant-petitioner also does not, at least prima facie, confer any discretion or clothe the opposite party with the jurisdiction to direct re-adjudication in respect of issues which stand concluded by the order of the Writ Court. Shri. K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Stand Counsel prays for time to obtain instructions and apprise the Court of the stand of the State respondent. List again after four weeks. Shri. Singh shall file a further affidavit in these proceedings on or before the next date fixed. From the affidavit filed today, it is evident that the the District Magistrate has taken a categorical stand that the area of plot No. 227 as shown in the relevant revenue record comprises of 1.900 hectares. The survey conducted has found that the applicant is in possession of 1.995 hectares. On the last occasion this Court had noticed the submission of the learned counsel that the survey team had also included land comprised in plot No. 228. This aspect has been denied by the District Magistrate in paragraph 8 of the affidavit and it has been further averred that no part of the land belonging to the applicant had been used for the purposes of construction of the road. These and other disputed issues of fact cannot be decided by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction in contempt. Consequently, this petition shall stand disposed of with liberty to the applicant to institute such proceedings, as may be permissible in law.";