- (1.) Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi,learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anshuman Vidhu Chandra who is also present along with him, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
(2.) This Contempt Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.05.2018 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2203 of 2018 (Taulan Singh @ Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 19 of the the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 wherein prayer is made to set-aside the order dated 28.05.2018 passed in Contempt Application No. 2203 of 2018 and consign the contempt petition to record.
(3.) The submissions made in the memo of Appeal are that the Writ No. 17471 of 2016 (Taulan Singh @ Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) was disposed of vide order dated 17.4.2017 with a direction to the District Magistrate to examine the original records keeping in mind the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in case of Shivram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others. This Court had also referred in the said order to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma, 2015 5 SCC 321. The said Contempt Petition No. 2203 of 2018 was filed alleging that the Opposite Party in the Contempt Petition had not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of the Writ Court's order dated 17.04.2017 and the same was still pending although in compliance of the said order dated 17.04.2017, the appellant had already passed an order on 23.01.2018 rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioner, therefore, the said order dated 17.04.2017 of the Writ Court had already been complied with. Thereafter, the contempt court passed an order dated 28.05.2018 (impunged order) whereby the appellant was directed to file his personal affidavit observing as follows:- "From the instructions placed on the record today, which for the purposes of identification are marked as 'X', the Court notes that the Collector states that there is no record or evidence of the alleged transfer of surplus land to the Allahabad Development Authority. The Court finds itself unable to appreciate the stand so taken by the Collector since if there were no records of a transfer to Allahabad Development Authority then recital to that effect could not have possibly appeared in his order of disposal. The Court is further constrained to observe and note that in the order of disposal passed by the Collector the stand taken is that the land had been transferred to the Authority prior to the promulgation of the 1999 Act and the appointed date prescribed thereunder. This positive recital is not explained even today nor does the Collector rely upon any evidence in support of this proceeding. In fact and to the contrary the Court notes from the instructions provided by him to Sri Upadhyay today that he admits that no evidence or material of the transfer of possession exists. The Court also takes note of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Lalji Vs. State of U.P., 2018 5 ADJ 566 in which too the stand taken was that the land had been transferred to the Allahabad Development Authority prior to 18 March 1999, the cut off date as prescribed under the 1999 Act. Even the Division Bench had found that no material existed or was brought on record to establish a transfer of possession in light of the statutory provisions. The Court further notes that apart from the above, the Collector alludes to no other material to establish that the land is in the possession of the ADA. It is evident that the disclosures made by the Collector Allahabad have been less than candid and prima facie are not borne out from the record. Consequently, the opposite party shall file his personal affidavit and explain why further action be not taken against him.";