Allahabad High Court
Seema Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Others on 1 February, 2010
Reserved
Writ - C. No. 66156/09
Seema Shukla
Vs.
State of U.P. and Others
******
Hon. Ashok Bhushan, J.
Hon.Virendra Singh, J.
(Delivered by - Hon. Virendra Singh, J.) This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Seema Shukla, the petitioner with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 passed by Tehsildar - Sagri, District - Azamgarh be issued, whereby the Tehsildar - Sagri has cancelled the income certificate dated 07.12.2006 issued in favour of the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the income certificate no. 583 dated 07.12.2006 was issued in favour of the petitioner after certifying the annual income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 19,200/-, thereby finding that the petitioner is living below poverty line. Respondent No. 6 Ram Surat filed a complaint on 10.06.2008 on which an enquiry was made by the Naib Tehsildar Sri Ram Dev, who has submitted a report dated 12.08.2008 to the effect that the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was correctly issued and the same bears the signature of the concerned Rajasva Nirikshak (Revenue Inspector) and Lekhpal as well. Sri Chandradev Ram Yadav, Minister of Small Scale Industries of the Government of U.P. pressurized the Tehsildar - Sagri to cancel the petitioner's income certificate, so that Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the daughter in law of Ram Surat (Respondent No. 6), could be appointed on the post of Anganbari Karyakarti in place of the petitioner. The present Tehsildar - Sagri, District - Azamgarh succumbed to the aforementioned political pressure and passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 thereby canceling the income certificate no. 583 dated 07.12.2006 issued in favour of the petitioner. The said impugned order has been passed altogether ignoring the report dated 12.08.2008 submitted by the concerned Naib Tehsildar as per directions issued by the Tehsildar on 02.08.2008.
It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner along with her husband and their son Utkarsh is residing separately from Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla, the father in law of the petitioner. There is no share given to the petitioner's husband from the landed property recorded in the name of Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla who is having five sons, including the petitioner's husband. The Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat has also given a certificate certifying that the petitioner is residing in the joint family. The concerned Lekhpal and Rajasva Nirikshak had also put their signature on the income certificate dated 07.12.2006 as per report dated 12.08.2008 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar.
On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the father of the husband of the petitioner Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla has 3.061 hectares of land, a pukka house and a printing press at Chalakpur in his name and therefore, BPL Card was wrongly issued in the name of the petitioner's husband. The income certificate issued in the name of the petitioner is based on fabricated and manipulated report of Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector, bearing forged signature of Kanoongo and Lekhpal and therefore, on the basis of that report dated 03.08.2007, the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was canceled.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents that on the basis of complaint received against the petitioner regarding her income, the enquiry in this regard is duly made. The Area Lekhpal Sri Awadhesh Lal reported that the petitioner's husband is residing in joint family with his father and for the purpose of wrongful gains, the husband of the petitioner has shown himself living separately with the intention to get in the BPL Card. The khatauni of Plot No. 79 and 216 bears land 2.8580 and 0.2870 hectares, respectfully In the name of the father of the husband of the petitioner Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla. It is also found that the husband of the petitioner has a pukka house and a printing press at Chalakpur, Block Haraiya, District - Azamgarh. The report submitted by Kanoongo and Lekhpal clearly shows that the income certificate earlier managed by the petitioner is based on forged and fabricated documents for which the concerned Lekhpal and Kanoongo have also refused to admit that they have signed on the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 07.12.2006.
It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that despite living jointly with his father, the husband of the petitioner got issued separate Parivar Register and the fact that the petitioner is living in House No. 31-Kha and her father in law is residing in House No. 31- Ka is entirely based on wrong facts because, in the village, there is no partition of any of house numbered 31-Kha and 31-Ka and the entire facts in this regard have been fabricated for the purpose of wrongful gains. The husband of the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of his father and is enjoying the benefits of the joint property, i.e. the agricultural land pukka house as well as the printing press and there is no partition effected either of the agricultural land or the pukka house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thereby filing supplementary affidavit further contended that admittedly the father in law of the petitioner is having 3.061 hectares of agricultural land, but out of which, half of the land is Ushar (unfit for agriculture) and the remaining half portion, i.e. 1.535 hectares is used for agricultural purposes and as per the guidelines of the Government regarding calculation of income, the total income from the said land in an area will be equal to 1.531 x 24,000 = 36744 only and since Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla is having five sons and two married daughters, therefore, the share of the petitioner's husband in the landed property will be 1/6, i.e. Rs 6,124/- per annum. The petitioner's husband is earning as agricultural labour approximately Rs. 6,500/- per annum only and therefore, the income of the husband of the petitioner cannot be more than Rs. 12,624/- per annum.
In the light of the contentions of both the parties and after going through the facts and circumstances brought on record, we are of the view that this petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed because as per enquiry made by the Tehsildar concerned, the earlier income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is found to have been issued on the basis of forged report of the concerned Lekhpal and Kanoongo, as they have denied the report signed by them on which basis the alleged certificate was issued.
So far as the question of agricultural land is concerned, there is an admission on record of the petitioner that admittedly Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla, son of Tirath Shukla, father in law of the petitioner is having 3.061 hectare land. In this regard,, the facts brought on record by the petitioner that half of the land is in the form of ushar (not fertile for agriculture) and merely remaining half portion, i.e. 1.531 hectare is being used for agriculture purpose, are not acceptable because such facts are not endorsed by the State or any authority in this regard nor such facts are supported by any documentary proof. The standard prescribed for issuance of the income certificate is very much relevant in this regard as per Annexure No. RA-2 disclosing that generally agricultural land shall be deemed to have been fetching the income of Rs. 24,000/- per annum per hectare and therefore, as per share of the husband of the petitioner, the income of the petitioner comes to the tune of Rs. 12,248/- per annum from the agricultural land.
The guidelines regarding issuance of income certificate as per Annexure RA-2 reveals that if any applicant is having a pukka house, the income of family of that applicant shall be deemed at least Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Here in this case, the factual report as per enquiry reveals that the applicant is living in a pukka house owned by her father in law. Though the husband of the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit stated that the petitioner's father in law Sri Dhanushdhari Shukla is having three kutchha rooms, out of which, one kutchha room (not having concrete roof) has been given to the petitioner's husband in which the petitioner as well as her husband along with their son are residing, but therein too, there is no mention that the father of the husband of the petitioner is not having any pukka house as is revealed from the enquiry report. Therefore, this fact regarding kachha house does not establish on record in favour of the petitioner.
One more fact is revealed that the petitioner's family is having a printing press and this fact is nowhere denied in the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. This fact is very much established on record in the counter affidavit of the respondent Tehsildar - Sagri, District Azamgarh and there is no denial of such fact on behalf of the petitioner.
Looking into the aforesaid discussion, we are of this view that since the income certificate earlier issued in favour of the petitioner is found based on the fabricated reports of Lekhpal and Kanoongo and since the husband of the petitioner is having sufficient agricultural land, pukka house and since the family of the husband of the petitioner is having a printing press also, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the order passed by the Tehsildar, thereby canceling the income certificate of the petitioner and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed which is hereby dismissed accordingly.
Dt. - 01.02.2010.
Jaideep/-