Allahabad High Court
Rinki Srivastava Alias Indu ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 23 June, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy, Syed Waiz Mian
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3949 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rinki Srivastava Alias Indu Srivastava And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra,Yogendra Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
On 22.06.2022 the following order was passed which reads as under:-
"Heard.
List/ put up tomorrow i.e. 23.06.2022 as fresh at 10.15 a.m. to enable the learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 to satisfy the Court as to in what manner the alleged allotment letters annexed with the writ petition and those produced before the Authorities in pursuance to the notices issued to some of the petitioners, are fabricated or forged, as the case may be. Requisite proof, if any, in this regard shall also be placed before the Court. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 shall also specifically inform the Court as to whether notices were issued to the petitioners in writing. If so, whether the petitioners responded to the same. Whether all or some responded. After such response what decision has been taken and the same shall also be placed before the Court.
Till tomorrow i.e. 23.06.2022 status quo shall be maintained with regard to the possession of the petitioners, if any, in respect of the houses under the Kanshiram Yojana, as, the learned counsel for the District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), Lucknow is not able to place the relevant information/ document before the Court today, may be because the case has come up on a mention being made through notice.
Shri Yogendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 shall communicate the order passed today for strict compliance.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for parties today itself on payment of usual charges."
Today Sri Yogendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has placed before the Court a decision of the District Magistrate, Lucknow dated 27.05.2022 taken in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 01.11.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.20768 (MB) of 2021, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
Shr Pandey informs the Court that the allotment letter bears the signature of an officer who in fact had already been transferred on 28.06.2019 and according to him had handed over the charge on 19.07.2019. The allotment letters have been issued subsequently, therefore, it says that they are forged and fabricated. On being asked as to whether the officer, who is alleged to have issued the allotment letter who had been transferred has been sustained in this regard, he says that the said officer has lodged an FIR on 25.09.2021 against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners says that many of the allotment letters are of period prior to 19.07.2019.
However, we find that except of petitioner no.1 herein Rinki Srivastava, other petitioners were not petitioners in the earlier writ petition referred hereinabove. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that except for the petitioner no.1, none of the other petitioners have approached the Court earlier as asserted by him on the earlier date. Only some of the petitioners have received noticed others have not even received notice from the District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), Lucknow or District Magistrate.
Copy of this order dated 27.05.2022 has not been served upon the petitioner no.1 Rinki Srivastava, but, has been served to her counsel only today by Shri Yogendra Kumar Pandey. In the case of other petitioners herein no such decision has been taken, in fact most of the petitioners claim that they have not been served any notice of eviction. The decision dated 27.05.2022 relates to those who had approached this Court by filing writ petitions and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 is not able to dispute this fact today.
At this stage, on being asked Shri Pandey submits that all the petitioners have not been given notice for vacating the premises only some have been given.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that appropriate procedure prescribed in law has to be followed and the minimum that is required to be done is to give notice to the petitioners i.e. the petitioners who have not already been given notice and thereafter a decision can be taken after considering their stand just as it has been taken vide order dated 27.05.2022 in the case of others. Unless this exercise is completed eviction of the petitioners from their house cannot be said to be justified.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation/directions that the petitioner no.1 shall have ten days' time to challenge the order dated 27.05.2022 and for a period of ten days, she shall not be evicted from the premises in question. As regard the other petitioners, if notices have already been served and the petitioners have submitted their documents/ reply etc. to the concerned authority, a final decision shall be taken in the matter at the earliest. If some of the petitioners have not been served notice, then they shall be served notice as per law, their response shall be taken into consideration and thereafter a decision shall be taken in their case also. Till such decision is taken and aforesaid procedure is followed, they shall not be compelled to vacate the premises in question. If the petitioners do not file their response to the notice the Competent Authority can proceed and pass appropriate orders.
With these observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.6.2022
KR
(Syed Waiz Mian,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
