[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
9 February vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 9 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:710
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2152 of 2025
09 February, 2026
Rajan --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, learned
counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant,
learned Standing Counsel and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief
Holder for State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
commanding and directing the respondent No.3 to revoke the
order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)
and pass fresh order in accordance to law and confirmed the
order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure No.11 to this writ petition)
by which the concerned authority has confirmed the title of
petitioner and confirmed him as an adopted son of Late Jugal
Kishore.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
commanding and directing the respondent No.3 to restore the
Successor Certificate No.UK10UTJ0330-190008566 dated
08.01.2021 in light of documentary evidence produced by
petitioner (Annexure No.8 to this writ petition).
2. The brief facts of the case are that Late Jugal
Kishore had only four daughters and when he was not
blessed with a boy, he adopted Master Sandeep at the age
of 1 year whose name was later on changed into Rajan
(present petitioner) by his adopted father. During the time
of execution of adoption deed, on 21.08.1990 the
biological mother of petitioner was passed away.
Petitioner's adopted mother and father passed away on
21.06.2012 and 26.01.2019. During the life time of
petitioner's father, none of his married daughter had
raised any dispute regarding his adoption, but after the
2026:UHC:710
sad demise of Sri Jugal Kishore, the question in context
to possession, rights and legal heir rights of petitioner
was raised and created a dispute in this regard. Private
respondents had applied for a Surviving Member
Certificate (mÙkjthoh izek.k i=) (wrongly termed as Successor
Certificate by the petitioner in writ petition) by concealing
the fact that the petitioner is only son of Late Jugal
Kishore and SDM, Sadar Dehradun issued Surviving
Member Certificate on 31.10.2019, by which the private
respondents were declared successor of Late Jugal
Kishore. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application
dated 29.02.2020 to SDM Sadar Dehradun to cancel the
Surviving Member Certificate issued on 31.10.2019 in
favour of private respondents and the concerned
authority had cancelled the said Surviving Member
Certificate and issued a fresh Surviving Member
Certificate on 08.01.2021 in favour of petitioner.
Respondent No.7 made a complaint on 05.07.2021 for
cancellation of Surviving Member Certificate dated
08.01.2021, which was issued ex-parte in favour of
private respondents without service of notice to petitioner.
Thereafter, once on the letter of petitioner, SDM Sadar
has passed a detail order on 14.02.2023, by which he
found Surviving Member Certificate No.UK10UTJ0330-
190008566 dated 08.01.2021 as genuine and restored
the order. On 27.04.2023, respondent No.7 filed an
Appeal No.04 of 2023 under Section 3 of the Right to
Service Act No.20 of 2011, challenging the order dated
14.02.2023. SDM vide order dated 11.11.2024 rejected
the Surviving Member Certificate of both parties and
directed the parties to obtain a succession certificate
under the law from a Competent Court. Thus, petitioner
is before this Court.
2026:UHC:710
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
during the life time of petitioner's father, none of his
married daughter had raised any dispute regarding his
adoption, but after the sad demise of Sri Jugal Kishore,
the question in context to possession, rights and legal
heir rights of petitioner was raised and created a dispute
in this regard, just to trouble the petitioner.
4. He further submits that the impugned order
dated 11.11.2024 is bad in law, as the SDM has rejected
the Surviving Member Certificate of both the parties
which is a gross illegality of law and against the violation
of Principal of Natural Justice, while amongst both the
parties, one must be the successor of the deceased as per
evidence produced by the parties..
5. Learned State Counsel submits that there is no
illegality in the impugned order dated 11.11.2024.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment
and order as well as the entire record available on record.
The impugned order dated 11.11.2024 is well reasonable
and the concerned Authority has rightly held that for
Succession Certificate, petitioner has to approach before
Civil Court or Competent Court. Reasons cited by the
learned SDM are sound and convincing, thus, this Court
is of the view that no interference is required exercising
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and
is dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.02.2026
PN
