Disposed

Gulfam v. Naib Tehsildar Nazul Tehsil Ayodhya

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024A227/4205/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addresses deficiencies in the administrative record, noting missing order sheets, unsigned documents, and unverified dates. The court directed the Standing Counsel to obtain proper records and instructions before reconsidering the matter.

What did the court decide?

The Learned Standing Counsel directed to get photocopy of record and seek complete instructions including cause of delay; matter listed fresh on 11.09.2024.

Gulfam vs Naib Tehsildar Nazul Tehsil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4205 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Gulfam Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar Nazul Tehsil Ayodhya Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Dhar Dubey,Roshani Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶6

In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 04.09.2024, the written instructions under the signature of Naib Tehsildar Nazul, Ayodhya, namely, Ravindra Nath Upadhyay dated 04.09.2024 has been provided to the Court for perusal. The same is taken on record.

¶7

The original record has also been placed before the Court, which has been perused and it indicates that there is just one letter allegedly dated 03.01.2021, which is on record, which does not bear the signature or endorsement of any officer, i.e., the Naib Tehsildar rather there is a small endorsement below which it is written Peshkar.

¶8

From the perusal of the entire record, which has been placed, there is no order sheet, which has been drawn and in the alleged order dated 03.01.2021, there is reference of certain letters allegedly sent to seek instructions as to how to proceed in the matter dated 10.01.2022, 23.03.2022 and 08.11.2023, but nonetheless, none of those letters are on record. Hence, the authenticity of the alleged order dated 03.01.2021 automatically becomes doubtful. Apparently, there is nothing to indicate that any knowledge or information was conveyed to the petitioner regarding the progress of the case and, therefore, the averment made in the writ petition in paragraphs 8 and 9 appears to be correct.

¶9

In the petition, it has been mentioned that next date fixed is 06.09.2024. However, from the original record there is nothing to indicate as to how the petitioner has written the next date as 06.09.2024. Even this averment made by the petitioner is not borne out from the record.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to get a photocopy of the said record, which has been placed before the Court today to be placed on record by the end of this working day.

¶11

Even in the written instructions, which has been provided,

¶12

apparently some observations have been made on the merit of the issue and in such circumstances, learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek complete instructions in the matter including as to why the said petition has been pending since 2021 without any information to the petitioner and apparently there are no order sheets clubbed with the fact that there is no letters, a reference of which is mentioned in the order dated 03.01.2021 and the only alleged order dated 03.01.2021 is no signed by any Presiding Officer.

¶13

List this matter on 11th September, 2024 as fresh.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Ashutosh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gulfam v. Naib Tehsildar Nazul Tehsil Ayodhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam v. Naib Tehsildar Nazul Tehsil Ayodhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Anusuiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sumiran @ Ram Sumiran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and Another

Shitla Prasad Yadav Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial ), Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur and Others

Rudra Nath Misra vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Smt. Anita vs Naib Tehsildar and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Krishna Kumar Omar Vaishya and Another