Allahabad High Court
Smt. Laxmi Devi vs District Magistrate Hardoi And ... on 3 December, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10551 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi Devi
Respondent :- District Magistrate Hardoi And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uttam Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The petitioner is the daughter in law of late Ramni Devi who was the wife of one Gaya Din. She died on 1.10.2012.
The petitioner contends that she moved an application to provide the certificate certifying the death of late Ramni Devi which was required for utilisation in succession matters. The applications have been filed before the District Magistrate and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Annexures-5 and 6 respectively and subsequently before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
According to the petitioner late Ramni Devi died at her village residence and this fact has been certified by the village Pradhan. Consequently, such registration of death, and the necessary entries in relation thereto, have to be carried out at the village level under Rule 142 read with Rule 143 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.
Under the provisions of the Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which is a Central Act, the State Government has been authorised to frame rules and consequently, U.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002 have also been framed.
The Registration of births and deaths in a village Panchayat being governed by the provisions indicated above, it appears that the report of the death has to be made as per Rule 143 or 144 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 within a specified period of time. The said rules do not make any further provision but at the same time, the U.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002 supplements the same by allowing delayed registration by the authorities mentioned in Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules. Rule 9 (3) of the Rules of 2002 authorises the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned to get the date of death registered if the information is being given after one year of the death on payment of late fee of Rs. 10/-.
What we find from the version of the petitioner is that she has already moved the application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate presumably under the provisions indicated above and a copy of the said application is Annexure-7 to the writ petition on which a report has been called for by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Learned counsel submits that no appropriate action has been taken thereafter as a result whereof, the date of death has not been correctly mentioned in the family register extract that has been issued and a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said family extract register mentions the name of Ramni as wife of Gaya Din.
In the aforesaid background, we direct the respondent no. 2 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in this regard, in view of the provisions aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
It shall be open to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to make all such possible enquiries including any dispute relating to the same, if any, between the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.12.2015
MFA/-
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 10551 of 2015
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The writ petition is disposed of vide our orders of date, on separate sheets.
Order Date :- 3.12.2015
MFA/-
