Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 293 (ALL)

OM DUTT SHARMA v. BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD

2007-02-08

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—Impugned herein is the order-dated 7.2.1994 passed by Board of Revenue Allahabad passed in Second Appeal No. 160 A of 1982-83 having genesis in a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. From a glance through the record, it appeared that the initial Counsel who filed the petition on behalf of the petitioner in the office of this Court on 16.4.1998 was Km. Adhya Gupta. Having travelled in various Courts on various dates, this Court was nominated and the matter came up before this Court. In the course of hearing, it was discovered that Gopi Lal petitioner No. 1 who was shown to have sworn affidavit on 17th March, 1998 in support of the writ petition, had already breathed his last on 13.11.1995. On gaining knowledge of the factum, this Court passed an order dated 22.12.2006 directing Registrar General of the Court to probe the matter and submit the enquiry report after recording statement of all concerned persons within a month. Enquiry report dated 8th January 2007, was submitted and the same has been ordered to be placed on record. 3. From a scrutiny of the enquiry report, it would transpire that Gopi Lal had passed away on 3.11.1994 and someone impersonating Gopi Lal forged his signatures on the Vakalatnama as well as on the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It further transpires from the report that Km. Adhya Gupta, learned Counsel who had identified Gopi Lal petitioner No. 1 was nowhere traceable and therefore her statement could not be recorded stating that she appears to have abandoned practice. In the ultimate analysis, Registrar General pinned the blame for wrongly identifying Gopi Lal and also for forged affidavit on Km. Adhya Gupta, Advocate. 4. I have heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and also learned Standing Counsel. 5. There is no gainsaying that the petition was filed on behalf of two persons namely, Gopi Lal petitioner No. 1 and Deo Dutt petitioner No. 2. The affidavit in support of the writ petition was sworn by Gopi Lal who had been spirited away by death long back in the year 1994 as stated supra. Further, it would appear from the record that some application was filed by Deo Dutt petitioner No. 2 on 11.7.1999 seeking to treat the supplementary affidavit as part of the writ petition. Further, it would appear from the record that some application was filed by Deo Dutt petitioner No. 2 on 11.7.1999 seeking to treat the supplementary affidavit as part of the writ petition. Considering that the writ petition itself has its foundation in forged affidavit sworn by a dead person, it shall be treated as still-born and no life can be blown into void by filing subsequent affidavits. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the affidavit swearing to the facts and averments in the writ petition bore forged signatures of a dead person. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. It is disquieting that such incidence of filing forged affidavit or affidavit bearing forged signatures are on the increase. My attention has been drawn to a slew of directions recently issued which are contained in the decision of this Court dated 8.2.2007 rendered in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2007, Raj Kumar and others v. State of U.P. The directions contained in the aforesaid decision are abstracted below : 1. That the order dated 2.2.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 264/07 in respect of filing of affidavits in this Court will be observed in all the writ petitions, appeals, revision to be filed in all jurisdiction of this Court where civil, criminal, revenue, service, education rent control or taxation and also in all criminal Misc. Bail Applications and Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 and 483, Cr.P.C. and Civil Misc. Applications under Section 151, C.P.C. at the initial stage. Fixation of photographs on the affidavit filed by the same deponent at any subsequent stage of the same proceeding shall not be essential provided it is averred in one paragraph of those subsequent affidavits that photograph of the deponent has already been fixed on the affidavit filed alongwith the main petition/application. In case, at any subsequent stage of any proceedings, the affidavit of any other person is to be filed then photograph of the subsequent deponent will have to be affixed on that affidavit. 2. In all the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government or Union of India by Government Advocates in all jurisdictions of the litigation, fixation of photographs shall not be essential; 3. 2. In all the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government or Union of India by Government Advocates in all jurisdictions of the litigation, fixation of photographs shall not be essential; 3. The Oath Commissioners before swearing an affidavit singing it will verify the identity of the deponent with that of photograph affixed on the affidavit which is to be verified by him and only after assuring that the deponent is the same person whose photograph is affixed on the affidavit that he will affirm and verify the affidavit; 4. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to get random checking made of the Oath Commissioners at a periodical interval for the purposes of implementation of this order in its true spirits. 6. The directions contained in the decision, I would not scruple to say, are complete in all respects to put a check on such disingenuous practices and I have nothing to add to the same except that the affidavits will be accepted in accordance with the Rules of the Court and further that the Registrar General shall arrange for as many photographers as may be required and earmark some place for the purposes in the precincts of the campus for facilitating the compliance of the directions of this Court and also the directions excerpted above and also to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public and to maintain the quality of photograph so that the same may not get smudged after some time and lastly to avoid further fudging at the end of photographing. The Registrar General shall also fix rate for three photographs to be used for each of the affidavits and shall also obtain opinion from the two Bar Associations at the rate fixed. It may further clarified that one of the photograph will be affixed on the affidavit, the second one on the register of the oath commissioner and the third one on the register to be maintained in the office where the affidavits may be received. All the three photographs shall be duly signed by the deponent and verified by the Oath Commissioner. 7. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for compliance and also for circulation to all concerned in terms of directions contained in the order dated 8.2.2007 as aforesaid. ————