Jai Narain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jai Narain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: original records (including the disputed notice dated 03.12.2024) retained in sealed cover; forensic examination directed with the petitioner and an official of the Forensic Laboratory, Mahanagar to appear on 17.04.2025; photocopy records returned to LDA counsel; and, till the next date, the structure existing on the land shall not be demolished; case listed fresh on 17.04.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 03.12.2024 was ever received by the petitioner and whether the signature dated 05.12.2024 on it is genuine, to be resolved through forensic examination. +1 more

Court's answer

The original records of the prescribed authority contain a notesheet, and the notice dated 03.12.2024 therein bears a signature which, per the officials present, is that of the petitioner Jai Narain, with the date 05.12.2024 beneath it — unlike the earlier photocopy records in which the notice bore no receipt.

Ratio / Principle

The original records produced, including the notice dated 03.12.2024 allegedly bearing the petitioner's signature, are retained by the Court and shall be kept in sealed cover.

Key takeaways

Forensic examination of the disputed signature was directed: the petitioner shall appear before the Court on 17.04.2025, and an official from the Forensic Laboratory, Mahanagar shall appear on that date to collect the petitioner's sample signature and take possession of the original documents.ratio¶¶9
As an interim measure, the structure existing on the land shall not be demolished until the next date.ratio¶¶14
The photocopy/scanned records produced earlier and today were returned to Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the L.D.A.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 2) — WRIT - C No. 2381 of 2025, Jai Narain v. State of U.P. (interim/compliance order dated 5.4.2025; Coram: Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.). In compliance of the Court's order dated 02.04.2025, the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority and the Prescribed Authority appeared. Records produced on the earlier date were scanned/photocopies without any note-sheet, in which the notice dated 03.12.2024 bore no receipt; the original records produced subsequently contained a notesheet and the notice bore a signature purportedly of the petitioner dated 05.12.2024. Petitioner's counsel, on instructions, asserted the notice was never received and the signature is forged and fabricated, agreeing to forensic examination. The Court retained the original records in sealed cover, directed the petitioner to appear on 17.04.2025 and an official of the Forensic Laboratory, Mahanagar to collect his sample signature and take possession of the original documents; the photocopy records were returned to LDA counsel; officers present were excused from further appearance unless called; no adjournment was to be granted to the petitioner on the next date; and, till then, the structure existing on the land was ordered not to be demolished.

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2381 of 2025

Petitioner :- Jai Narain

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Shukla,Saumya Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Kumar Singh Ii,Ratnesh Chandra

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Heard.

In compliance of our order dated 02.04.2025, Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority and Prescribed Authority are present. Today, certain records have been placed before us which are different from the records produced on the last date in the sense that the earlier records as apprehended were scanned/ photocopies and they did not contain any note-sheet. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A. fairly informs us that those were photocopies/ scanned copies maintained at zonal office. We fail to understand as to why the said records were produced before us when we had summoned the records from the prescribed authority; why the original records were not produced. Further, we find that in the earlier records, the notice dated 03.12.2024 did not bear any receipt as has been recorded by us but today in the original records of the prescribed authority which have been produced and contain a notesheet, such notice bears a signature which as per the officials who are present, is that of the petitioner- Jai Narain and under the signature, there is a date mentioned i.e. 05.12.2024. We allowed petitioner's counsel to peruse the said record. We also allowed him to seek instructions from the petitioner as to whether on 05.12.2024, he had signed receipt or notice dated 03.12.2024 or not, learned counsel came back and submitted that he has instructions to inform the Court that the said notice was never received by him and that signature are forged and fabricated. He also agreed for a forensic examination of the said document. For forensic examination, presence of the petitioner would be required.

The original records which have been produced including the notice dated 03.12.2024 allegedly bearing signature of the petitioner are retained which shall be kept in sealed cover. Petitioner shall appear before this Court on 17.04.2025.

Let some official from Forensic Laboratory, Mahanagar appear before this Court on 17.04.2025 to collect sample signature of the petitioner and also take possession of the original documents referred above and such other original documents bearing the petitioner's signature as may be required if available on the next date.

Sri Shailesh Tewari, learned Standing Counsel shall ensure compliance of the aforesaid.

The records containing photocopies which have been produced earlier and produced today are returned to Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for L.D.A.

List this case on 17.04.2025 as fresh.

The officers who are present today need not appear again unless specifically called for. However, they shall ensure that in future only original records are produced and proper assistance is provided to the Court.

Till then, the structure existing on the land shall not be demolished.

No adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner on the next date.

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Shanu/-

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench