# Satyam Kumar and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31181 of 2013
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyam-kumar-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42675
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Married
couple-seeking
protection
of
their
matrimonial
life-marriage
certificate
issued
by
an
advocate-as
marriage
officer-while no any advocate has been
given such power-though out the statedue to death of such erring advocate no
question of drastic action-no protection
can be given.

Held: Para-10
No advocate has been delegated or
assigned any powers of the Marriage
Officer, therefore, the aforesaid Kamta
Prasad is not a person authorized to act
as a Marriage Officer and to register any
marriage.
The
aforesaid
marriage
certificate as such is a nullity and a void
document.

## Text

3 All] Satyam Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1251
of U.P., 1982 ALJ 134, Raj Kumar Vs.
State, 1985 RD 14, Charan Singh Vs.
State, 1988 RD 134 (DB), Shashi Kant
Rai Vs. State, 2002 (93) RD 736, that
tenure holder can revise his choice till his
right is extinguished under Section 14 of
the Act. The discretion vests in the
Prescribed Authority to accept the choice.
The Prescribed Authority by his order
dated 11.09.1996 has accepted the revised
choice of the tenure holder.

13. It has been further held by this
Court in Moti Lal Vs. State of U.P., 1998
RD 723 and Chidda Vs. Azizur
Rehman, 2003 (95) RD 231 that allottees
have no right to challenged the order of
the Prescribed Authority accepting choice
of the tenure holders.

14. So far as the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner that the tenure
holder, voluntarily gave choice of the surplus
land on 22.08.1980, which has been accepted
by the Prescribed Authority by order dated
30.08.1980. The land which was opted for
surplus land on 22.08.1980 was infertile land.
After allotment, the petitioners invested huge
amount and made the land fertile, as such, the
tenure holder cannot be permitted to change
the surplus land and the tenure holder is
estopped from resiling from his earlier
admission and give another land as his choice
for surplus land, it is stated that no question of
admission arise at all. Doctrine of estoppel is
not applicable against the statute. The statute
provides right to the tenure holder to give his
choice. Right to give choice includes right to
revise choice till the land is vested in State of
U.P. under Section 14 of the Act as held
above. As such principles of estoppel has no
application in this matter. The pattas of the
petitioners
were
temporary
and
any
investment made by them was on their own
risk. It will not bind the tenure holder.

15. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition has no merit
and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31181 of 2013

Satyam Kumar and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Haribans Singh, Sri Chandrika Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Devesh Vikram

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Married
couple-seeking
protection
of
their
matrimonial
life-marriage
certificate
issued
by
an
advocate-as
marriage
officer-while no any advocate has been
given such power-though out the statedue to death of such erring advocate no
question of drastic action-no protection
can be given.

Held: Para-10
No advocate has been delegated or
assigned any powers of the Marriage
Officer, therefore, the aforesaid Kamta
Prasad is not a person authorized to act
as a Marriage Officer and to register any
marriage.
The
aforesaid
marriage
certificate as such is a nullity and a void
document.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal , J.)

1. Heard Sri Chandrika Prasad, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Devesh
Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared
for respondents No. 1,2 and 3. Sri Daya
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shankar Pandey, Nagar Magistrate/Marriage
Officer, Nagar Khestra, Mirzapur is also
present.

2. Petitioners Satyam Kumar and
Meera Singh Yadav have jointly filed this
petition seeking protection to their married
life on the allegation that they have married
of their own freewill before the Marriage
Officer on 10.1.2012. The affidavit in
support of the petition is sworn by petitioner
No.2 Meera Singh Yadav.

3. Sri Devesh Vikram on behalf of
respondent
No.4
has
filed
counter
affidavit which is sworn by none other
than petitioner No.2 Meera Singh Yadav.

4. The two affidavits on record are
in conflict with one another. In one
affidavit petitioner No.2 states that she
has married with petitioner No.1 and in
the other she denies the marriage.

5. It appears that petitioner No.2
submitted the first affidavit on the dictates
of petitioner No.1 with whom she is said
to have married. Her other affidavit which
is in the form of counter affidavit appears
have been given by her under-pressure
from her father as presently she is in his
care and custody.

6. Petitioner No.2 Meera Singh Yadav,
is present in court. She states that she is
presently living with her parents but is not
happy as she wants to live with petitioner No.1
and does not want to remarry with any person
of the choice of her parents. However, she is
unable to explain as to in what way or manner
her marriage with petitioner No.1 was
solemnized. She says that the marriage took
place
before
the
Registrar
of
Marriage/Marriage Officer.

7. The Marriage Officer, Mirzapur is
present with the record i.e. the register and he
informs that no marriage between the
petitioners was ever solemnized or registered
before him on 10.1.2012 and the marriage
certificate which has been enclosed with the
writ petition as part of annexure-4 is not a
certificate which has been issued from his
office.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid marriage
certificate on page 22 of the writ petition
reveals that it does not anywhere bear the
name and seal of the said Marriage Officer,
District Mirzapur rather it discloses that it has
been issued by one Kamta Prasad, M.A.,
B.Com. L.L.B. Advocate exercising power of
the Marriage Officer.

9. Sri Pandey, confirms that the
aforesaid Advocate was never a Marriage
Officer authorized to register any marriage.

10. No advocate has been delegated or
assigned any powers of the Marriage Officer,
therefore, the aforesaid Kamta Prasad is not a
person authorized to act as a Marriage
Officer and to register any marriage. The
aforesaid marriage certificate as such is a
nullity and a void document.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, as there is no reliable
proof of marriage of the petitioners, their
marriage cannot be recognized in law
specially in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

12. The marriage, if any, between the
petitioners would be subject to declaration of
their rights/status thereof by the competent
court or due and proper registration of their
marriage in accordance with law.

13. The court wanted to take stern
action against the advocate issuing the
3 All] Ratan Samaj High School Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1253
marriage certificate unauthorizedly but
the learned Standing Counsel informs that
on inquiry being made from the residence of
the aforesaid Advocate it has been revealed
that he has died on 22.12.2012 and his death
is registered with the Registrar of births and
deaths Mirzapur. In view of the above and
the photocopy of death certificate produced
which is taken on record, no action for
unauthorizedly issuing marriage certificate
can be taken against the Advocate.

14. Accordingly, the protection
which has been claimed in this writ
petition cannot be extended to any of
them. No case for exercise of discretion in
favour of the petition has been made out.

15. The writ petition is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32662 of 1993

Ratan Samaj High School ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Bhall, Sri R.C. Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
High
School
&
Intermediate
Education(Payment of salaries of Teacher
and other employee)Act 1971-Section 13A- Payment of salary-Junior High School
running
under
grant
in
aid-after
upgradation all teaching and non teaching
staff denied salary from state fund-heldentitled for salary from state exchequer.

Held: Para-13
In view of the above, I am of the view that
even prior to insertion of Section 13-A in Act
1978 on 1.11.2000, the position of law was
same, namely the teacher and the staff of
Junior High School, which was aided prior to
upgradation to High School, will continue to
get the salary and allowances from the State
Government even after upgradation to High
School. To remove the doubt, Section 13-A
has been inserted in Act 1978, which clearly
stipulate the above position. Section 13-A is,
therefore, clarificatory in nature and applies
retrospectively.

Case Law discussed:
1998(1) LBESR 471; (2001) 1 UPLBEC 213;
2003-LBESR-2-671; (1994) 3 UPLBEC 2037;
(2001) 1 SCC 43; 2010(1) ESC 44 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Pal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Rai, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The undisputed facts of the present
case are that the petitioner was running a
Junior High School. The institution was
covered under the provisions of the U.P.
Recognised Junior High School (Payment of
Salaries of Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act
1978). Since the Junior High School was
under the grant-in-aid, therefore, the salary of
the staff was being paid by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari and Basic Lekha Adhikari, Agra.
On 22nd March, 1993, by the order of the
Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, Meerut, the Institution has been
upgraded from Junior High School to High
School level and the same has been granted
recognition. Aid was not given to the level of
High School by the State Government and,
therefore, it did not fall within the purview of
the U.P. High School and Intermediate
Education (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and other Employees) Act, 1971.