Allahabad High Court
Smt. Meera Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 January, 2010
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65773 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.P. Tiwari,B.D. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.8.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by which the petitioner's application for issuing a domicile certificate has been rejected.
The petitioner made an application for issuing a domicile certificate with regard to village Hathivadtal Post Uska district Siddharth Nagar. The Sub divisional Officer directed for inquiry. A report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar on 31.7.2009. The report indicated that a small hut has been kept by the petitioner on a land which was purchased one year ago and further there was no sign of living in the said hut also. The revenue official and Tahsildar opined that there was no sign of petitioner's living at the place where it is claimed and the petitioner was resident of village Mathura, post and Block Uska Bazar Tahsil Naugarh, District Siddharth Nagar. On the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Officials, the Sub divisional Officer has rejected the application which is being challenged in the present writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is living for the last three years at village Hathivadtal. He submits that in her application dated 23.2.1999, which was submitted to the Block Development Officer, the petitioner has mentioned that she is living at the village in question for the last three years. The report having been submitted by Revenue officials on 31.7.2009, stating therein that one Biswa land was purchased by the petitioner one year ago and there was no sign of living at the place in question, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Sub divisional Officer are on the basis of the relevant materials and reports, which cannot be said to be irrelevant. No ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010 LA/-