Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2134 (ALL)

Bal Sundri v. State of U. P.

2014-07-18

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The issue in the present case pertains to the claim submitted by the petitioner for the grant of a domicile certificate. By an order dated 9 September 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier writ petition, the petitioner was relegated to filing an appeal under the provisions of the U.P. Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam-2011. The Collector, Rampur thereupon passed an order on 22 January 2014 by which he disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner by directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda to submit a detailed report on whether the petitioner is or is not a resident of village Madwa Hasanpur, Tehsil Tanda. 2. After the order of the Collector, an enquiry report was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar and Revenue Inspector. On 14 April 2014, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda passed an order holding that it would not be appropriate to grant a certificate of domicile to the petitioner primarily for the reason that (i) it was only on 10 May 2012 that a registered sale deed had been entered into for the execution of land; (ii) the name of the petitioner was not borne in the family register; and (iii) it was revealed during the enquiry that the petitioner was in fact serving as an Anganbari Karyakarti in village Berkheda district Moradabad from where she had resigned on 23 January 2013. Hence, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that though the statement of the villagers supported the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was a resident of Gram Madwa Hasanpur since 28 March 2009, but this was belied the documentary material available on the record. 3. On the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Collector has made an endorsement to the effect that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should decide the matter at his level since the appeal has already been disposed of by the order passed by his predecessor on 22 January 2014. 4. The order which was passed by the Collector on 22 January 2014 undoubtedly disposed of the appeal but the Collector also directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda to submit a detailed report on whether or not the petitioner was an ordinary resident of the village. Once this exercise was completed, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 14 April 2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Once this exercise was completed, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 14 April 2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Against this order, the Collector and District Magistrate would be the first Appellate Authority under Section 3 of the U.P. Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam-2011. This is evident from the notification which has been issued under the provisions of Section 3 on 15 January 2011. 5. In the circumstances, we permit the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 14 April 2014 before the Collector. If the petitioner does so within a period of two weeks from today, we request the Collector and District Magistrate to dispose of the appeal after furnishing to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.