- (1.) Facts of the present case as narrated in the writ petition are as follows:- (i) Respondent nos.4 and 5 were husband and wife and they brought a plot no.869, measuring area of 521 square yard, situated at Colony known as Shalimar Garden, Extention-1, Village Pasonda, Loni, District Ghaziabad, through a sale deed dated 19.02.1981 from company known as Mahalakshmi land & Finance Pvt Ltd. (ii) As per the petitioner's case, Shri Jai Prakash Gupta (respondent no.4) and Smt Kiran Bedi Gupta (respondent no.5) died on 12.12.1984 and 22.12.2001 respectively. (iii) The said plot was sold to Smt. Raksha Devi Thapar (mother of the petitioner) and Kumari Madhu Thapar (sister of the petitioner) by a registered sale deed dated 12.02.1990 by the eldest son of Shri Jai Prakash Gupta through power of attorney. (iv) One Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan along with some anti social persons when tried to disposses the petitioner from the said plot an FIR.was also lodged against him on 04.11.2012. (v) The petitioner also filed a suit bearing Suit no.2603 of 2012 against Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan for seeking permanent injunction for restraining him from interfering in the peace full possession of the petitioner on the said plot and the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad granted permanent injunction against him on 13.12.2012. Hence Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan challenged the same, by way of filling FAFO No.97 of 2014 and the court below vide order dated 09.01.2014, stayed the order dated 13.12.2012. The FAFO is still pending for adjudication before the Court. (vi) During the pendency of the said FAFO, Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan, being hand in glove with Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal by setting up some imposters as Shri Jai Prakash Gupta (respondent No.4) and Smt Kiran Devi Gupta (respondent No.5) sold the plot-in-question to one Smt Rekha Agarwal wife of Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal. (vii) As soon as the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fraud, he lodged an FIR.dated 02.03.2015 bearing no. 222 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of IPC against Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Chauhan, Anil Agarwal, Rekha Agarwal, Suresh Chand Mittal and Km. Disha Srivastava alleging that these accused have fraudulently executed the sale deed by posing them as Jai Prakash Gupta and Kiran Gupta. (viii) After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 11.06.2015 and the charges were framed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. (ix) Respondent nos. 4 and 5 had filed a Criminal Revision before this Court, which is still pending. The petitioner came to know that while filling the said criminal revision, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 had attached the copy of Aadhaar Card bearing no. 642116310070 in the name of Shri Jai Prakash Gupta and Aadhaar Card No. 3259534296 in the name of Shri Kiran Bedi Gupta. (x) On inquiry, petitioner came to know that the Aadhaar Card No. 3259534296 was issued to one Smt. Roshanara, however, during upgradation it was fraudulently made in the name of Smt. Kiran Prakash Gupta. Similarly, the other Aadhaar Card No.642116310070 was earlier issued to one Ashok son of Rampal however, during upgradation, name on the Aadhaar Card was changed to Jai Prakash Gupta. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) Shri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although respondent nos. 4 and 5 have already died, still the, Aadhaar Cards were fraudulently prepared/upgraded in the name of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in order to execute a sale deed. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has approached the Aadhaar Authority to give details of the abovementioned two Aadhaar Cards, however, Aadhaar Authority have refused to supply the same as being barred by Section 33 Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as Aadhaar Act). Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon certain informations received from Election Commission of India regarding voter identity card of respondent nos.4 and 5.
(3.) Learned Senior counsel further submitted that prior to the amendment in the Aadhaar Act, word "District Judge" was mentioned in Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act which is now substituted by "Judge of High Court", therefore, the petitioner has no other remedy to file the present writ petition before this Court in order to seek direction from this Court for calling the records of these Aadhaar Cards from the Aadhaar Authority in order to ascertain the correct fact.;