- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.48265 of 2014 (Shyamakant v. State of U.P. and Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:- "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ram Raj Singh, learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to take actual physical possession from the petitioner in pursuance of government order dated 08.05.2009 and to abate the proceedings under case no. K-2620/1976 and further prayed for a direction to correct the revenue records in the name of the petitioner over the land in question.
(3.) The record of the case was summoned, it is a local matter and register has also come. The register clearly shows that while the proceedings under Section 10(5) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 against the petitioner had been initiated actual physical possession was not taken by the State under Section 10(6) of the Act. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefit of the Repealing Act and because the proceeding under Section 10(6) of the Act was never completed against the petitioner. Therefore proceedings pending before the Ceiling Authority would stand abated and he would be entitled to the benefit of the Repealing Act.;