[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Kalpana Kashinath Gharat And Ors vs Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-AS:3377
1/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13460 OF 2023
1. Smt. Kalpana Kashinath Gharat
Age : 63 years, Occu. Agriculture
2. Shri. Dhanesh Kashinath Gharat
Age: 42 years, Occ. Agriculture
3. Shri. Bhupesh Kasinath Gharat
Age: 41 years, Occ. Agriculture
4. Shri. Vandesh Kashinath Gharat
Age: 39 years, Occ. Agriculture
5. Shri. Naresh Daulat Gharat
Age: 57, Occ. Agriculture
(Nos. 1 to 5 all are R/at. Village
Sarpada, Post: Umroli, Taluka and
District: Palghar.)
6. Shri. Atmaram Daulat Gharat
Age: 70, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. 303, Parvati Complex,
Near Auto Stand, Narayan Nagar,
Tembhode, Taluka and District:
Kartikeya
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:05:51 :::
2/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
Palghar.
7. Smt. Pushpa @ Bharti Bhaskar
Patil
Age: 69 Years, Occ.: Household
R/o. Near Padmanabh Swami
Temple,
Tembhode, Taluka and District:
Palghar .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The Tahsildar & Executive
Magistrate Palghar, Taluka : Palghar,
District : Palghar.
2. The Gram Sevak and Sub-
Registrar Birth, Death and
Registration of Marriages Village :
Umroli, Taluka : Palghar, District :
Palghar.
3. Kishor Harishchandra Patil
Age : 60, Occu : Agriculture,
A/p : Sarpada, Post : Umroli
Tal. : Palghar, Dist : Palghar.
.. Respondents
...
Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar (through VC) a/w Mr. P.S. Hande, Mr.
Omkar Shinde and Mr. Jai B. Gharat, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Vijay Kurle, for the Respondent No.3.
...
Kartikeya
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:05:51 :::
3/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21st JANUARY, 2026
Oral Judgment : [Per Bharati Dangre, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, the matter is
taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.
2. In light of our order dated 14.01.2026, we have the
appearance of the learned counsel on behalf of Respondent
No.3, at whose instance, the death of late Smt. Tarabai
Harishchandra Patil, resident of Palghar, District Thane, was
recorded into the Death Register, as she had demised on
15.10.1963.
3. On the previous date of hearing, out attention was
invited to Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969, and specifically to Clause 3 thereunder, which
prescribe that any birth or death, which has not been
registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered
only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a
Presidency Magistrate, after verifying the correctness of the
birth or death and on payment of prescribed fees.
4. In the wake of the aforesaid provision, the learned
counsel Mr. Arjunwadkar (appearing through VC) for the
Kartikeya
4/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
Petitioners had called in question the order dated 13.01.2014
passed by the Executive Magistrate, Palghar, recording the
death of Smt. Tarabai Harishchandra Patil in the Death
Register, without following the prescribed procedure, i.e.,
verifying the correctness of the birth or death by a Magistrate
of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate and on payment
of the prescribed fees.
5. Today, on appearance on behalf of Respondent No.3, the
provision in the form of Rule 10(3) of the Maharashtra
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1976 ("the Rules of
1976") is brought to our notice and on reading of the said Rule,
it is evident that the Rule permitted delayed registration of
birth/death after the expiry of the period specified therein, on
payment of fees and this registration was permitted on an
order of the Executive Magistrate and on payment of late fees
of Rs. 5.
Mr. Kurle is right in submitting that this Rule run
contrary to the provision in the parent Act, but he fairly
concede to the legal position that a provision in the parent
Statute will override and prevail over the Rule, which is the
subordinate legislation.
He also submit that in the wake of the amendment, which
has come into effect from 11.08.2023, in Section 13(3), now
the power is vested in the Executive Magistrate and it is quite
Kartikeya
5/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
possible that this amendment is brought to do away the
anomaly that existed between the parent Statute and the Rule
framed thereunder.
In any case, since the death or birth is to be registered on
expiry of the period of one year of its occurrence, it must
necessarily be in compliance with the Sub-Section (3) of
Section 13, i.e., on verifying the correctness of the birth or
death and on payment of the prescribed fees and in the wake of
the amended provision, now by the Executive Magistrate.
6. In the wake of the aforesaid, we are left with no option,
but to quash and set aside the order dated 13.01.2014 passed
by the Executive Magistrate, Palghar, who at the relevant
time, while passing of the order, was not conferred with these
powers. While we quash and set aside the said order, we permit
the application preferred by Respondent No.3 to be considered
in light of Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 and upon verifying the
correctness of the death of the deceased in which regard the
application made for recording of the death in the Death
Register, and now since the Executive Magistrate is entitled to
pass an order, fresh order shall be passed within a period of
three months.
Needless to state, this shall be done after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Kartikeya
6/6 19-WP-13460-2023(OJ).odt
Upon quashing of the impugned order, the Certificate, if
any, issued shall also stand recalled.
The Writ Petition is made absolute as above.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Kartikeya
