# Arun & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 981
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-19
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53791
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Shashank Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
claim
compassionate
appointment on the basis of unregistered
adoption deed.

Headnotes
Service law
-
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,
1956
-
S.
16
-
Registration
Act,
1908
-
S.
17
-
Compassionate appointment - Claim was
made on the basis of an adoption deed,
which was denied on the ground that the
adoption deed is not registered one -
Validity challenged:
Held : A conjoint reading of the amended
Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in
the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3)
of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of
U.P. makes it clear that after 01.01.1977, any
adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only
by way of a registered deed and not otherwise
- As the alleged adoption deed is a notarized
deed and not a registered deed in accordance
with law, therefore, no benefit could accrue at
least before a writ court in favour of the
appellant. [Paras 7 and 8] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal no. 236 of 2014; Sanjay Kumar
3238 (S/S) of 2014 v. State of U.P. & Ors.
decided on 05.05.2014 - referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
S. 16; Registration Act, 1908 - S. 17 (amended
vide S. 32 of Amendment Act, 1976); U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976

List of Keywords
Natural
guardian;
Adoption
deed;
Compassionate
appointment;
Presumption;
Registered
deed;
Statutory
requirement;
Succession
certificate;
Notarized
deed;
Secondary evidence.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed in
HABC Writ Petition No. 177 of 2025; Ayesha v.
State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Prateek Tewari,
Praveen Kumar Tewari
Advs. for the Respondeents : C.S.C., Shashank
Shukla

## Text

9 All. Arun & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
981
(2025) 9 ILRA 981
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025

Arun & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Prateek Tewari, Praveen Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shashank Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
claim
compassionate
appointment on the basis of unregistered
adoption deed.

Headnotes
Service law
-
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,
1956
-
S.
16
-
Registration
Act,
1908
-
S.
17
-
Compassionate appointment - Claim was
made on the basis of an adoption deed,
which was denied on the ground that the
adoption deed is not registered one -
Validity challenged:
Held : A conjoint reading of the amended
Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in
the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3)
of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of
U.P. makes it clear that after 01.01.1977, any
adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only
by way of a registered deed and not otherwise
- As the alleged adoption deed is a notarized
deed and not a registered deed in accordance
with law, therefore, no benefit could accrue at
least before a writ court in favour of the
appellant. [Paras 7 and 8] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal no. 236 of 2014; Sanjay Kumar
3238 (S/S) of 2014 v. State of U.P. & Ors.
decided on 05.05.2014 - referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -
S. 16; Registration Act, 1908 - S. 17 (amended
vide S. 32 of Amendment Act, 1976); U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976

List of Keywords
Natural
guardian;
Adoption
deed;
Compassionate
appointment;
Presumption;
Registered
deed;
Statutory
requirement;
Succession
certificate;
Notarized
deed;
Secondary evidence.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed in
HABC Writ Petition No. 177 of 2025; Ayesha v.
State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Prateek Tewari,
Praveen Kumar Tewari
Advs. for the Respondeents : C.S.C., Shashank
Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard.

2.
This
is
a
special
appeal
challenging an order dated 11.08.2025
passed by learned Single Judge in HABC
writ petition bearing No.177/2025 [Ayesha
through her mother Ragini and Anr. vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.]. The petition was
filed by respondent no.6 through her
natural guardians and respondent nos.7 and
8. Learned Single Judge has allowed the
claim of natural guardians i.e. opposite
party no.s 7 and 8 to custody of opposite
party no.6 and has rejected the stand of
appellants herein on the ground that alleged
adoption deed which is a notarized one is
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not registered whereas the law requires it to
be registered.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has relied upon a judgment dated
05.05.2014 passed in special appeal no.236
of 2014 [Sanjay Kumar 3238 (S/S) of 2014
vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] to contend that in
that case Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in
short 'the Act, 1956') as applicable in the
State of U.P. was considered and it was
held that compassionate appointment could
not have denied prima facie merely on the
ground that adoption deed was not
registered one. According to the Coordinate Bench, U.P. amendment provides
that additional evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 shall be admissible to
defend any unregistered adoption deed.
This is the only argument advanced for
challenging the judgment of learned Single
Judge.

 "16. Presumption as to registered
documents relating to adoption- Whenever
any document registered under any law for
the time being in force is produced before
any court purporting to record an adoption
made and is signed by the person giving
and the person taking the child in adoption,
the court shall presume that the adoption
has been made in compliance with the
provisions of this Act unless and until it is
disproved.

4. As per the above quoted Section
16 of the Act, 1956, if the adoption deed is
registered then it raises a presumption
about validity of the adoption. However,
this provision was amended for its
application in the State of U.P. by U.P.
Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments)
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the
Amending Act of 1976'). The statement of
objects and reasons (paragraph-5) for
introducing the said Amending Act of 1976
discloses the intent and object for bringing
about the amendment, interalia, in Section
16 of the Act, 1956 which reads as under:-

 "5. A deed of adoption of a child,
a sale deed of immovable property of the
value below Rs. 100 and an agreement to
sell immovable property, are not required
compulsorily to be registered at present.
Playing upon the element of chance
involved in oral evidence, fictitious antedated deeds of such nature are set up with
view to usurp the property of a rightful
transferee of legatee, and on the other hand
genuine transactions of these categories
are challenged. Suitable amendments are
proposed in the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, The Registration Act, 1908, and the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956
to make compulsory the registration of the
adoption deeds, all agreements to sell
immovable property and all transfers of
immovable property irrespective of the
value or consideration."

5.Accordingly, Section 16 of the
Act, 1956 was amended by Section 35 of
the Amending Act of 1976 for its
application in the State of U.P. in the
following terms:-

 "Uttar
Pradesh-
Renumber
Section 16 as sub-section (1)thereof and
after sub-section (1) as so renumbered,
insert
the
following
sub-section
(2)
namely:--

 "(2) In case of an adoption made
on or after the 1st day of January, 1977 no
court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any
evidence in proof of the giving and taking
of the child in adoption, except a document
recording an adoption, made and signed by
9 All. Arun & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
the person giving and the person taking the
child in adoption, and registered under any
law for the time being in force:

 Provided that secondary evidence
of such document shall be admissible in the
circumstances and the manner laid down in
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

6. To facilitate the aforesaid, by
Section 32 of the Amending Act of 1976,
as was proposed in the objects and reasons,
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1908')
was amended by inserting clause (f) to
Section 17(1) of the Act, 1908 and interalia
amending sub-Section (3) of Section 17 for
its application in the State of U.P. Section
17 (1) containing clause (f) and sub-Section
(3) of Section 17 read as under:-

 "17.
Documents
of
which
registration
is
compulsory.--(1)
The
following documents shall be registered, if
the property to which they relate is situate
in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act
No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration
Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act,
1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877,
or this Act came or comes into force,
namely:--,

 ...................................................

 (f) any other instrument required
by any law for the time being in force, to be
registered,

 (2).....

 (3) Authorities to adopt a son,
executed after the Ist day of January, 1872,
and not conferred by a Will [and an
instrument recording adoption of a child
executed after the first day of January,
1977] shall also be registered"

7. A conjoint reading of the
amended Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as
applicable in the State of U.P. and Section
17 (1)(f) and (3) of the Act, 1908 as
applicable in the State of U.P. makes it
clear that after 01.01.1977, any adoption in
the State of U.P. can take place only by
way of a registered deed and not otherwise.

8. There is no exception to the
aforesaid said statutory requirements. There
is nothing in the provision whether under
sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) as
applicable in the State of U.P. of Section 16
of the Act, 1956 or the Act, 1908 which
could lend itself to even a remote
suggestion that an unregistered deed could
be relied upon to claim adoption as is being
claimed herein. The judgment relied by
learned counsel for the appellant was
rendered in a case of compassionate
appointment where a succession certificate
had already been issued to the appellantpetitioner and he had also been paid postretiral
dues.
As
regards
the
other
observations, with respect, we have perused
the provision itself and do not find any
such stipulation therein. As the alleged
adoption deed is a notarized deed and not a
registered deed in accordance with law,
therefore, no benefit could accrue at least
before a writ court in favour of the
appellant. The proviso to sub-Section (2) of
Section 16 of the Act, 1956 as applicable in
the State of U.P. merely provides that
secondary evidence of such document shall
be admissible in the circumstances and the
manner laid down in the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. Now, secondary evidence would
be admissible only when the primary
evidence existed but was not available for
any reason. Here, it is not the case of the
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants that there was an adoption deed
duly registered which is not available,
therefore, there is secondary evidence. The
case of the appellants in the very first
instance is that there was only a notarized
adoption deed, therefore, the proviso also
does not help the appellants.

9. The appeal lacks merits and it is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 984
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 913 of 2022

Thakurdeen ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Adarsh Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Monika Arya, A.C..S.C.

Issue for Consideration
1. Legality of eleven orders awarding minor
penalty viz. Censure, Adverse entry in Annual
Confidential Report, Withholding of a day's
salary etc.
2. Significance of principle of Audi alteram
partem in the matter of imposing minor penalty.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - UP Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
3(i) and 7 - Minor penalty - Censure -
Allegation of misconduct - Audi alteram
partem - No opportunity of hearing was
provided - Effect :
Held : The impugned order is bad, first, on the
principle of violating the rule of audi alteram
partem, and, also being one made in breach of
Rule 3(i) of the Rules of 1999, governing
imposition of minor penalties on government
servants, serving the State Government of Uttar
Pradesh. The impugned order dated 12.10.2018
is, therefore, fit to be quashed with liberty to
the respondents to pass a fresh order, after
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
petitioner, if they so desire. [Para 26]

(B) Service law - Award of adverse entry
in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) -
Charge of unauthorized absence - No
opportunity of hearing was afforded -
Effect :
Held : The law would entitle the petitioner to
an opportunity of hearing before he is rated bad
or poor in the ACR for the relevant year - The
part of the adverse entry in the ACR, which by
the first order, withholds the petitioner's
integrity, and by the latter order, classes it as
suspect, is the result of a perverse conclusion -
The consequence would be that the impugned
orders 16.03.2019, 19.07.2019 and 31.07.2020,
insofar as these rate the employee as poor or
bad in his ACR, would have to be quashed with
liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order,
after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. [Paras 32 and 36]

(C) Service law - Withholding of a day's
salary - Imposing of a penalty, which was
not
provided
under
the
law
-
Permissibility :
Held : It is trite law that a punishment, that can
be awarded, is only one, which the Rules
provide. The punishment, to be meted out to an
employee by the employers for a defined
misconduct, is not something for the employers'
fancy or innovation. Only that punishment can
be awarded, which the rules provide; not
anything different - A perusal of Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1999 would show, particularly the part
relating to minor penalties, that there is no
penalty envisaged there, which may authorize
the respondents to withhold one day's salary for
unauthorized absence of an employee - The
impugned
orders
dated
01.04.2019
and
13.06.2019,
imposing
the
punishment
of
withholding a day's salary, are manifestly illegal.
[Paras 37 and 39] (E-1)

Case Law Cited