L.D.A. must explain identity of multi-named lady who is Guddi in L.D.A., Aradhana in police and lower court and Anuradha in Highcourt

 

संदर्भ संख्या : 40015721055158 , दिनांक - 30 Jul 2021 तक की स्थिति

आवेदनकर्ता का विवरण :

शिकायत संख्या:-40015721055158

आवेदक का नाम-Dinesh Pratap Singhविषय-श्री मान जी प्रार्थी को आप यह बताये की बहु नाम वाली यह औरत जिसका आप अपने हर पत्र में गुड्डी सिंह बता रहे है उसको उच्च न्यायालय अनुराधा सिंह कहता है और लोअर कोर्ट और पुलिस आराधना सिंह कहती है उसका वास्तविक नाम क्या है क्यों की आप के यहां भी कई स्थानों पर गुड्डी सिंह का पहचान पत्र लगा होगा क्यों की नाम बदल कर रेमेडी लेना अपराध है जैसे की मालिकाना हक़ वाद अर्थात टाइटल सूट और भूखंड आबंटन सम्बन्धी प्रक्रिया तथा निबंधन अभिलेख संपादन या सब जगह घुस ले कर छूट देते गए  

Applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the respondent number First who is Secretary of home department, civil secretariat, Government of Uttar Pradesh and respondent number second who is senior superintendent of police Lucknow as well as the station house officer police station Ashiyana who is the respondent number 3 in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 filed in the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad filed by Anuradha Singh also named Guddi also named Aradhana Singh through her mother Beena Singh wife of Brijraj Singh also Beena Singh wife of Netrpal Singh. Whether in the same matter, to get remedy from various redressal bodies and get public aid by changing the name is not illegal? This lady took the land of LDA by bearing the name of Guddi daughter of Brijraj Singh and in order to seek remedy from High court of Judicature at Allahabad, she took the new name Anuradha Singh, and now she has been Aradhna Singh whether it is not a mockery of the law of land? Sir, please take a glance of the affidavit submitted by the sub-inspector Satyesh Prakash Dwivedi in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. This affidavit is on behalf of the respondent number-1, 2 and 3, so it is the responsibility of the concerned to maintain the sanctity of the affidavit. Sir order of the High court of judicature was for respondent number 1.2 and 3. Sir how can it be justified that Aradhna changed name of Guddi and Anuradha could manage the support of respondent number 1, 2 and 3 to get illegal possession of the land and house of the applicant by robbing the household articles of the applicant and fabricating the false charges not only on the applicant but also on his wife and daughter? Whether this step of the aforementioned respondents had not undermined the authority of the High court of judicature and against the spirit of the affidavit submitted by them through the aforementioned sub-inspector, as the spirit of the affidavit was crushed by them? Whether the High court of judicature had ordered to slap false and fabricated charges on the applicant and his wife and daughter as a conspiracy to provide illegal possession to Anuradha Singh and Aradhana Singh by colluding with police may loot the valuables of the applicant by breaking the Locks of rooms? Whether it was the motive of the High court in passing the order that police may play the role of a competent court and competent administrative body as ordered in the writ of multi named personality Anuradha Singh to seek a civil remedy before the competent court? Whether the civil remedy is provided by the police in this largest democracy in the world and the police is the competent court?

Department -विकास प्राधिकरणComplaint Category -

नियोजित तारीख-14-08-2021शिकायत की स्थिति-

Level -विकास प्राधिकरणPost -उपाध्यक्ष

प्राप्त रिमाइंडर-

प्राप्त फीडबैक -दिनांक को फीडबैक:-

फीडबैक की स्थिति -

संलग्नक देखें -Click here

नोट- अंतिम कॉलम में वर्णित सन्दर्भ की स्थिति कॉलम-5 में अंकित अधिकारी के स्तर पर हुयी कार्यवाही दर्शाता है!

अग्रसारित विवरण :

क्र.स. सन्दर्भ का प्रकार आदेश देने वाले अधिकारी प्राप्त/आपत्ति दिनांक नियत दिनांक अधिकारी को प्रेषित आदेश स्थिति

1 अंतरित ऑनलाइन सन्दर्भ 30-07-2021 14-08-2021 उपाध्यक्ष-लखनऊ,विकास प्राधिकरण अनमार्क