Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 219 (UTT)

Nadeem Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-03-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Vipin Sanghi, J.) 1. The present Special Appeal is directed against the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions on 24.08.2022, including Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1659 of 2022 preferred by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said Writ Petition, wherein the appellants/ writ petitioners had sought a direction to the respondent-authorities not to dispossess/ evict the appellants/ writ petitioners, except under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, and not to demolish the structures, without giving them an opportunity of being heard. They had also sought maintenance of status quo in relation to the property. 2. The Writ Petition had been preferred by the builders and occupiers of the five storeyed building, which had been constructed, admittedly, without obtaining any prior permission of the Lake Development Authority, which is now known as the District Level Development Authority, and which is stated to be contrary to the master-plan of the Nainital town. The said construction, apart from being unauthorized, was raised in the Green Belt. The respondents relied upon Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed in the writ proceedings, in support of their aforesaid submission. 3. The case of the appellants/ writ petitioners was that other structures have also been raised in the vicinity, which had not been demolished. This submission of the appellants was rejected, with the observation that the appellants cannot claim negative equality, i.e. equality in illegality. 4. Along with the present Special Appeal, the appellants placed on record a document claimed to be the response received under the Right to Information Act. On the basis of the said response dated 06.09.2022, the appellants claimed that the area, where the building was raised, is not falling in the Green Belt. When this Appeal was taken up by this Court on 15.11.2022, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, appeared on advance notice, and stated that the alleged queries, raised under the Right to Information Act, as well as the alleged reply thereto, were doubtful. It was pointed out that the alleged reply was claimed to be issued by the Office of the Nainital Lake Region Special Area Development Authority, which is not even the nomenclature used by the respondent- authority. It was pointed out that the alleged reply was claimed to be issued by the Office of the Nainital Lake Region Special Area Development Authority, which is not even the nomenclature used by the respondent- authority. Moreover, the number inscribed on the document was 75/2009, and the date of the document had been put in hand. 5. We, therefore, directed the appellants to place on record the original of the said document, along with an additional affidavit. The appellants filed a supplementary affidavit in response to our direction, placing on record what they claim to be the originals of the RTI query raised by them on 23.08.2022, and the alleged original of the response dated 06.09.2022, along with the postal envelope. On 21.11.2022, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, on instructions, stated that not only the alleged response dated 06.09.2022 was a forged and fabricated document, but even the postal envelope had been forged and fabricated. He desired to file reply to deal with the said aspect. One week’s time was granted for the said purpose. The relevant records/ registers of the respondent were also directed to be kept available for the perusal of the Court, and the matter was adjourned to 30.11.2022. 6. The respondent no. 3 then filed its affidavit in terms of the aforesaid order, and the appellants sought time to respond to the said affidavit, which too has been filed. In paragraph nos. 6 to 12 of the affidavit filed by Shri Pankaj Kumar Upadhayay, the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital, he states as follows :- “6. That it is submitted that the aforesaid document relied upon by the appellants dated 06.09.2022 has been perused by the deponent and the signature made thereon are not the signature of the deponent being Secretary of the Development Authority and hence the aforesaid document dated 06.09.2022 is a forged document. 7. That it is submitted that for the last several years the office has never addressed itself as Nainital Lake Region Special Development Authority, inasmuch as, there is a creation of the Development Authority and now it is termed as District Level Development Authority Nainital and hence the nomenclature of the office used makes the entire document doubtful and further the manner in which the reply has been submitted makes the contents of the aforesaid document doubtful. 8. 8. That it is further submitted that the appellants have submitted an application on 23.08.2022 under Right to Information Act which was duly responded by the office on 03.11.2022 and was received by the representative of the appellants namely Nazma on 07.11.2022 and hence at the time of filing the supplementary affidavit on 17.11.2022 the appellants were fully aware that the aforesaid document is not a document provided in response to the communication dated 23.08.2022. True copy of the letter dated 03.11.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. - 1 to this objection/affidavit. 9. That it is further submitted that it is a matter of co-incidence that no registered letter was issued from the office of District Level Development Authority Nainital on 14.09.2022 the date on which the alleged postal receipt has been dispatched. True copy of the dispatch register of registered letters is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.- 2 to this objection/affidavit. 10. That further the dispatch register of 06.09.2022 further suggests that no such letter has been issued from the office of the District Level Development Authority Nainital to the appellants. True and typed copy of the record/part of the aforesaid dispatch register is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. -3 to this affidavit. 11. That it is further submitted herein that with the sense of responsibility after perusing the documents and further making inspection of the records of the District Level Development Authority Nainital, it is absolutely clear that the alleged letter of 06.09.2022 is a forged one. Further no such letter has been issued on 14.09.2022 through registered letter duly dispatched from Nainital Kachhari Post Office by the office of District Level Development Authority Nainital. 12. That since in order to obtain the orders from the Hon'ble Court and to mislead the Hon'ble Court the forged documents have been placed and hence the Hon'ble Court may take cognizance of the issue and take appropriate action which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 7. The respondent no. 3 placed on record supporting documents to support their aforesaid averments. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the appellants, the appellants claim that other applications, under the Right to Information Act, had similar seal and signatures. The respondent no. 3 placed on record supporting documents to support their aforesaid averments. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the appellants, the appellants claim that other applications, under the Right to Information Act, had similar seal and signatures. Reliance is also placed on other applications, under the Right to Information Act, to claim that same stamp, bearing the same nomenclature – as was used by respondent no. 3 in 2017, is still in use. 9. Mr. Sandeep Kothari states that he has written instructions to state that even these documents are forged and fabricated, and no such applications, under the Right to Information Act, were ever received, which forms the basis of the forged and fabricated response placed on record, alongwith the rejoinder. 10. We have heard the learned counsels, and considered their rival submissions. 11. It does not stand to reason that respondent no. 3 would use its stationery, which is about 5 years old, while sending response to the alleged queries raised by the appellants in the year 2022. Even the document filed by the appellants with the rejoinder – claiming the same to be the response received by others under the Right to Information Act, is not on the same stationery, on which the appellants claim to have received their response. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 by its responsible officer - Shri Pankaj Kumar Upadhayay, the Secretary, District Level Development Authority, Nainital, and we have no reason to not accept the same. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to any relief. Even on merits, it is clear that the appellants have raised construction unauthorizedly, without the sanction of the authority, on an area, apparently, which lies in the Green Belt. 13. Accordingly, we dismiss the present Special Appeal, with costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the appellants with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority. The said funds shall be utilized by the said authority for the purpose of mediation. 14. We also direct the Registrar General of this Court to file an appropriate complaint before the concerned Court for filing of forged and fabricated documents in the Court. It goes without saying that the said complaint shall be examined on its own merits by the concerned Court, in accordance with law. 15. 14. We also direct the Registrar General of this Court to file an appropriate complaint before the concerned Court for filing of forged and fabricated documents in the Court. It goes without saying that the said complaint shall be examined on its own merits by the concerned Court, in accordance with law. 15. Since we have examined the Special Appeal on merits, we are not going into the aspect of delay. 16. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.