Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 March, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                        2026:UHC:1786
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1900 of 2025
                        16th March, 2026
Anil Kumar Mishra                                  .........Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others             .............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned D.A.G. for the State/respondent
nos.1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 7.
There is no representation for respondent nos.5 and 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned cancellation order dated 10.04.2023, issued by respondent no.2-Registrar of Birth and Deaths, whereby he cancelled the Death Certificate dated 04.02.2017 (in respect of one Shree Nathu s/o Shree Phatru, who expired on 03.02.1993 having registration No.D-2017; 5-90170-000136 dated 04.02.2017).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Nathu s/o Shri Phatru was a resident of Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun, and was the owner of land bearing Khata No. 01006, Khasra No. 807 admeasuring 0.0500 hectare, 380 Na, area 0.200, and Khasra No.839/Ka, area 0.0540 hectare, total area admeasuring 0.3040 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed property"). Shri Nathu was a family friend of the petitioner's late father, Shri Daya Shankar Mishra. Prior to his death, late Shri Daya Shankar Mishra took care of Shri Nathu, and in consideration of such care, Shri Nathu executed a Will dated 12.11.1991 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property. Shri Nathu, after execution

2026:UHC:1786 of the Will, passed away on 03.02.1993 at Dehradun.

3. The petitioner performed the last rites of late Nathu at Shamshan Ghat, Lakhibagh, Dehradun. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the death certificate of Nathu in the prescribed format and also submitted a copy of the receipt issued by Shri Shivaji Sewa Samiti, Dehradun, regarding the purchase of wood for the funeral expenses.

4. Upon the said application, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, after due inquiry, issued the death certificate bearing Registration No. D-2017;5-90170-000136 dated 04.02.2017. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid Will, the petitioner filed mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar, and the case was registered as Case No. 1976 of 2017, Anil Kumar Mishra vs. Shri Nathu. In the said proceedings, objections from the general public were invited, and as no objections were received, the Tehsildar, vide order dated 02.08.2017, allowed the mutation application and directed petitioner's name to be recorded in the revenue records.

5. Meanwhile, one Mr. Vinay Goyal, without having any locus and with ulterior motives, raised objections and filed a criminal complaint alleging that Shri Nathu had expired long back on 17.12.1945 and that the death certificate was forged. On the basis of the said complaint, the Chief Health Officer, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, wrote to the I.G., Garhwal, and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his daughter.

6. Aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioner and his daughter filed a Writ Petition (Crl.) bearing No. 754 of 2019 before this Court, wherein a Coordinate Bench granted stay of arrest vide order dated 22.05.2019.

7. Subsequently, one Mr. Chaitanya Ghosh, respondent no. 6, who is associated with respondent no. 5

2026:UHC:1786 and is the Manager of his Trust, filed an application under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1901") challenging the mutation order passed by the Tehsildar, Dehradun. Upon the said application, the Tehsildar, vide order dated 30.11.2018, restrained the parties from alienating the property in question.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the Act of 1901. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 04.01.2019, set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar. Thereafter, the Tehsildar directed the parties to maintain status quo as per the directions of the Board of Revenue.

9. Meanwhile, as the respondents were interfering with the petitioner's possession and attempting to dispossess them, the petitioner approached the Chairman, Board of Revenue, vide letter dated 13.12.2022. The Chairman directed the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to conduct an inquiry and submit a report explaining why the order dated 04.01.2019 had not been complied with.

10. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was duly mutated, and the petitioner remained in peaceful possession of the disputed property. However, allegedly due to the influence of respondent no. 6, the police filed a charge sheet dated 12.02.2020 against the petitioner, his daughter, and one Mr. Ajay Singh Chauhan in a partisan manner and without sufficient evidence.

11. Subsequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, summoned the petitioner, his daughter, and Mr. Ajay Singh Chauhan to face trial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Application No. 281 of 2021, and a

2026:UHC:1786 Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2021, stayed the proceedings of the learned trial court.

12. Meanwhile, the Registrar, Births and Deaths, upon complaints made by respondent nos. 5 and 6, cancelled the death certificate of Shri Nathu vide the impugned order dated 10.04.2023. Hence, the present writ petition.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos.5 and 6 have no locus and have maliciously filed complaints with an ulterior motive to grab the property of the petitioner. It is further contended that the Registrar, without adhering to the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancelled the death certificate vide the impugned order, which is in violation of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1969").

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the said provision makes it clear that no death certificate can be cancelled without providing an opportunity of hearing to the stakeholders. It is further submitted that the Additional Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, in his report to the Nagar Ayukt, has admitted that prior to cancellation of the death certificate, the petitioner, being a stakeholder, was not heard. It has also been observed that since criminal proceedings regarding the disputed property are pending, it would not be proper for the Nagar Nigam to initiate proceedings in the matter.

15. Learned counsel further submits that mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar and restrain the Nagar Nigam from withdrawing the impugned order dated 10.04.2023, which was passed without hearing the petitioner.

16. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of

2026:UHC:1786 the considered opinion that it is an admitted position that the petitioner, being a stakeholder, was not heard before passing the impugned order dated 10.04.2023. The same is in violation of the principles of natural justice which is also enshrined under Section 15 of the Act of 1969. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 uses the words " proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar" , this satisfaction as per the opinion of this court cannot be arbitrary and can only be reached at, after adhering to principles of Natural Justice.

17. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"15.Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.-If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in the 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."

18. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.7 with a direction to pass a reasoned and detailed order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders concerned, within a period of eight weeks from today.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.03.2026 SK