# Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 313
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 21923 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-tiwari-sanjay-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49205
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections 13(3) & 15 -
Date of death - Correction proceeding -
Nature - Opinion, how far relevant - Held,
the enquiry contemplated u/s 13 is limited
for
the
purposes
of
verifying
the
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authenticity of the information relating to
birth or death of the person concerned -
An opinion formed in such enquiry is not
conclusive determination of the date of
birth or death and is therefore not binding
on a regular court competent to decide
questions relating to living status of a
person or other questions of fact. (Para
11)
B. Civil Law - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
35 - Entry in the Register of births and
death - Admissibility - It's relevance as
conclusive proof - Held, no doubt, an
entry made in the register of births and
deaths is admissible as a relevant fact u/s
35 of the Evidence Act and is also
admissible as a piece of evidence u/s
17(2) of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 to prove the date of
death or birth. But, neither section 35 of
the Evidence Act nor section 17(2) of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969 provides that the date of birth or
death entered in the register of births and
deaths is conclusive proof of the date of
death or birth of the person concerned.
(Para 10)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)

## Text

2 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
25.01.2021 passed by the Reference Court
related to a different acquisition made
through notifications, completely different
from ones through which the petitioners'
land was acquired. This is a case which
would require inquiry on the basis of
evidence, at least comparing the plot
numbers and the acquisition notifications.
It is not something that could be disposed
of by a cryptic remark accepting a letter
saying all these things, addressed by the
Executive Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad
to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate, Land Acquisition. Whichever
way the matter is looked at, it is after all a
matter of evidence, where the land of the
petitioners is allegedly one that has been
acquired through the same notification i.e.
the subject matter of the award dated
25.01.2021 passed in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993. The order of the Additional District
Magistrate,
L.A.,
rejecting
the
said
application is one that ultimately declines
to redetermine the award on whatever
ground. It is, therefore, as much an award
as one that adjudicates the claim on merits
and determines a figure of compensation
payable,
upon
a
revision
done
in
accordance with the Reference Court's
judgment.

19. The petitioners' remedy against
the order impugned, in our opinion,
therefore, would be to make an application
to the Collector requiring the matter to be
referred to the Court under sub-Section (3)
of Section 28-A. Once that reference is
made, it goes without saying that the
Reference Court will examine the question
on the basis of evidence to be adduced by
parties, if indeed the petitioners are entitled
to claim benefit of the award dated
25.01.2021 passed in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993. The question of the relevant
notification, through which the petitioners'
land has been acquired and the one that is
subject matter of L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993 being one or not, would also be
examined by the Court, as this issue is a lis
which the Court ought to decide.

20. Upon an application being made
by the petitioners to the Collector, Kanpur
Nagar, reference shall be made under subSection (3) of Section 28-A of the Act of
1894. It goes without saying that the Court
concerned shall entertain the reference and
decide the same after hearing parties, in
accordance with law.

21. The petition is disposed of,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 21923 of 2019

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections 13(3) & 15 -
Date of death - Correction proceeding -
Nature - Opinion, how far relevant - Held,
the enquiry contemplated u/s 13 is limited
for
the
purposes
of
verifying
the
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authenticity of the information relating to
birth or death of the person concerned -
An opinion formed in such enquiry is not
conclusive determination of the date of
birth or death and is therefore not binding
on a regular court competent to decide
questions relating to living status of a
person or other questions of fact. (Para
11)
B. Civil Law - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
35 - Entry in the Register of births and
death - Admissibility - It's relevance as
conclusive proof - Held, no doubt, an
entry made in the register of births and
deaths is admissible as a relevant fact u/s
35 of the Evidence Act and is also
admissible as a piece of evidence u/s
17(2) of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 to prove the date of
death or birth. But, neither section 35 of
the Evidence Act nor section 17(2) of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969 provides that the date of birth or
death entered in the register of births and
deaths is conclusive proof of the date of
death or birth of the person concerned.
(Para 10)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 7.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
orders dated 10.04.2019 and 26.10.2012
passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhaj,
Deoria in Case No. 6, under Section 13 (3)
of the Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969.

3. Arising out of a property dispute, the
petitioner and the private respondents 4 to 6
are in conflict with regard to the date of death
of one Jagat Narayan son of Dhanushdhari.
According to the petitioner, he died in the
year 1970 whereas according to the private
respondents he died on 29.08.1971.

4. As per the petitioner Jagat Narayan's
year of death was earlier entered in the
register as 1970. Later, an application was
submitted to make corrections and to enter
his date of death as 29.08.1971. On the said
application, on the basis of a report submitted
by ADO (Panchayat) dated 10.01.2000, by
order dated 26.10.2012, the Up Zila Adhikari,
Barhaj, Deoria directed that date of his death
be entered as 29.08.1971. An application was
filed by petitioner on 28.05.2014 for recall of
the order dated 26.10.2012 on the ground that
Ram Garib Tiwari (predecessor in interest of
the petitioner), who was a respondent in that
proceedings, had expired and there was
therefore no one to challenge the claim set up
by the other side, as a result, the order was ex
parte. This application of the petitioner has
been rejected by order impugned dated
10.04.2019.

5. While rejecting the application of the
petitioner
to
recall
the
order
dated
26.10.2012, the Up Zila Adhikari, Barhaj,
Deoria has observed that the proceedings
with regard to registration of births and
deaths are administrative in nature and he
holds no power to recall/review the order
passed earlier therefore he has no jurisdiction
to entertain such application as made by the
petitioner. He also observed in the order that
the proceedings which led to the order dated
26.10.2012, on the basis of report dated
10.01.2000, were pending for over a decade
and were got adjourned for one reason or the
other therefore, it is not a case where no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner side.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited our attention to Section 15 of
2 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969 which provides that if it is proved to
the satisfaction of the Registrar that any
entry of a birth or death in any register kept
by him under this Act is erroneous in form
or substance, or has been fraudulently or
improperly made, he may, subject to such
rules as may be made by the State
Government with respect to the conditions
on which and the circumstances in which
such entries may be corrected or cancelled,
correct the error or cancel the entry by
suitable entry in the margin, without any
alteration of the original entry, and shall
sign the marginal entry and add thereto the
date of the correction or cancellation.

7. On the strength of the aforesaid
provision, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the application of
the petitioner should have been entertained
as a correction application and therefore,
the same should not have been rejected as
being not maintainable.

8. The learned Standing Counsel, who
appears for the State-respondents, submits
that this is a case where an entry made
earlier was applied for correction and, after
obtaining
report,
by
order
dated
26.10.2012, correction was directed. In
such circumstances, the application of the
petitioner was not to correct an original
entry but was in fact to review the order
passed on 26.10.2012. It was urged that
since there is no power of review, the Up
Zila Adhikari, Barhaj, Deoria was justified
in
holding
the
application
as
not
maintainable.

9. Having noticed the rival submissions,
on a close scrutiny of the record, we find that
the date of death of Jagat Narayan is the bone
of contention between the parties in a
litigation pending before the Consolidation
Court. In those proceedings an issue has
arisen whether Jagat Narayan could file a
revision in the year 1971 when he had died in
the year 1970. In the register of births and
deaths there appeared an entry with regard to
the death of Jagat Narayan in the year 1970.
As to when that entry was made is not
disclosed in the petition. What is disclosed in
the petition is that the private respondents had
applied for correction of that entry in the year
1999. It also appears that on the application a
report was submitted by ADO (Panchayat)
dated 10.01.2000, which is there on record as
Annexure 6. From that report it appears that
the name of Jagat Narayan finds mention in
the family register. The report recites that as
the family register rules were notified in the
Gazette in the month of June, 1970, the
possibility of Jagat Narayan being alive in
1970 is high inasmuch as the register in all
probability would have come into existence
only thereafter. The report records that from
the date of the application submitted by Jagat
Narayan and the family register it appears
that Jagat Narayan died on 29.08.1971.

10. No doubt, an entry made in the
register of births and deaths is admissible as a
relevant fact under Section 35 of the
Evidence Act and is also admissible as a
piece of evidence under Section 17(2) of the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969
to prove the date of death or birth. But,
neither section 35 of the Evidence Act nor
section 17(2) of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 provides that the date of
birth or death entered in the register of births
and deaths is conclusive proof of the date of
death or birth of the person concerned.

11. To ascertain the nature of the
proceedings under the 1969 Act, we
scanned through its provisions. Despite our
effort we could not find any provision in
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1969 enabling the Registrar to summon a
person to record his evidence on oath. The
counsel for the petitioner also could not show
any provision under the said Act enabling the
Registrar to exercise powers of a Court to
summon witnesses and record their statement
on oath and to allow cross examination of
those witnesses. The enquiry contemplated
under Section 13 is limited for the purposes
of
verifying
the
authenticity
of
the
information relating to birth or death of the
person concerned brought to the notice of the
Registrar or the Magistrate, as the case may
be, so as to enable him to form an opinion
whether the information provided is to be
entered in the register or not and for such
purpose it may take an affidavit. An opinion
formed in such enquiry is not conclusive
determination of the date of birth or death and
is therefore not binding on a regular court
competent to decide questions relating to
living status of a person or other questions of
fact. These entries may, however, be taken
into consideration as a piece of evidence. As
to how much weight is to be attached to such
an entry would depend on the facts of each
case based on the evidence led by the parties
before the court empowered to decide such
questions of fact.

12. In such view of the matter, no
useful purpose would be served in
examining the correctness of the entry in
these proceedings when their correctness
can
be
tested
in
a
regular
court
proceeding on the basis of evidence led
therein.
We,
therefore,
decline
to
interfere with the order impugned in this
petition and leave it open to the petitioner
to lead such admissible evidence, as they
may be advised, in connection with the
date of death of Jagat Narayan, before the
competent court where the proceedings
are pending.

13. Subject to above, the petition is
disposed off.

14. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion with regard to the
date of death of Jagat Narayan.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 316
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 39549 of 1998

Shiv Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.S. Dabas, Sri Arpit Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 47-A & 56 - UP Stamp Rules,
1942 - R. 341 - Rule of 142 repealed in
1997 - Applicability of Rule of 1942
regarding sale-deed executed in 1992 -
Held, It is noteworthy that in the year
1997, the U.P. Stamp Rule 1942 were
repealed. Since it is a matter of 1992 and
the property in question was purchased on
04.06.1992, therefore the stamp duty
would be payable in accordance with the
provisions of U.P. Stamp Rule, 1942 - The
property in question is a building which
has been assessed for the purposes of
House Water and other related municipal
taxes, therefore, the provisions of Rule
341 (iii) (b) are applicable to the property
in question - Respondents has flouted the
provisions of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942,
which was prevalent at the time of