Santosh v. Block Development Officer, Sheetalpur, Etah) under section

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the authority concerned has gone beyond its jurisdiction in attempting to verify the date of the death of the father of the petitioner. He relied on the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Velu Vs. Madathi reported in AIR 1992 Madras 224, wherein the following observations were made by the Court.

4. The relevant paragraphs are delineated hereinbelow:- "7A. Under the Act, a duty is cast upon certain persons mentioned in S. 8, to give information to the authorities constituted under the Act, the various particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed for the registration of births and deaths. The head of the household, the medical officer, in-charge of hospitals, the jailor incharge of jail, the person in charge of a choultry-chatram, hostem, dharmasala boarding-house, lodging house, tavern, arrack toddy shop and places of public resort, the headman of a village are required to give information. Failure to give information calls for penal action. S. 8(1) requires these persons to give information orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledges and belief. The information so given is entered in the registers prescribed under the Act and extracts of the entries in Registers are given when required. If the information is not given within the period prescribed, the same could be given within 30 days of its occurrence on payment of a late fee. Any information given after 30 days but within one year of the occurrence, could be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority, on the production of an affidavit made before a notary public, and ., on payment of the prescribed fee. If, however, any birth or death had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, it could be registered only on an order made by Magistrate of the first class after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. The relevant sub-section is as follows:-- "13(3) 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 presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee".

8. No particular procedure is prescribed either under the Act or the Rules, regarding the manner in which the Judicial Magistrate is to verify correctness of the birth or death. The very fact that no particular procedure is prescribed for the this verification would imply, that all that the Judicial Magistrate is concerned with under S. 13(3) of the Act is, verification of the correctness of the birth or death. Sub-sec. (3) as it stands, does not contemplate the learned Magistrate to verify the correctness of the date of birth or death or to hold an enquiry in the event of a dispute over the exact date of death or birth. The verification has to relate only to the correctness of the fact of birth or death. In other words, the learned Magistrate will have to be satisfied, that the birth or death had in fact taken place. Deciding the exact date of death or birth in the case of a dispute regarding the date, is beyond the scope of S. 13(3). As stated earlier, information which the persons mentioned in S. 8 are bound to give for registration of the birth or death, could be based on their knowledge or even belief. If after verifying, the learned Magistrate is not satisfied that the birth or death had really taken place, he should refuse to issue an order to register. If, however, he is satisfied that the birth or death as the case might be, had occurred, he has to order registration. He is not concerned with the exact date of birth or death. He has to register as required by the applicant and leave the aggrieved parties, if any, to seek remedy in the civil forum or any other appropriate forum. The object of the Act is only to make available, population data for planning purposes. Indeed, if the registration is made contemporaneous to the birth or death, the evidentiary value of the date of birth or death, would be considerable and would even be conclusive. This however, is only a consequence that incidentally flows from the registration, the main object still being, registering the fact of birth or death."

5. We are at consensus ad idem with the decision of Single Judge of the Madras High Court.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with the direction to authority concerned to issue the death certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the authority concerned has gone beyond its jurisdiction in attempting to verify the date of the death of the father of the petitioner. He relied on the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Velu Vs. Madathi reported in AIR 1992 Madras 224, wherein the following observations were made by the Court.

4. The relevant paragraphs are delineated hereinbelow:- "7A. Under the Act, a duty is cast upon certain persons mentioned in S. 8, to give information to the authorities constituted under the Act, the various particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed for the registration of births and deaths. The head of the household, the medical officer, in-charge of hospitals, the jailor incharge of jail, the person in charge of a choultry-chatram, hostem, dharmasala boarding-house, lodging house, tavern, arrack toddy shop and places of public resort, the headman of a village are required to give information. Failure to give information calls for penal action. S. 8(1) requires these persons to give information orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledges and belief. The information so given is entered in the registers prescribed under the Act and extracts of the entries in Registers are given when required. If the information is not given within the period prescribed, the same could be given within 30 days of its occurrence on payment of a late fee. Any information given after 30 days but within one year of the occurrence, could be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority, on the production of an affidavit made before a notary public, and ., on payment of the prescribed fee. If, however, any birth or death had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, it could be registered only on an order made by Magistrate of the first class after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. The relevant sub-section is as follows:-- "13(3) 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 presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee".

8. No particular procedure is prescribed either under the Act or the Rules, regarding the manner in which the Judicial Magistrate is to verify correctness of the birth or death. The very fact that no particular procedure is prescribed for the this verification would imply, that all that the Judicial Magistrate is concerned with under S. 13(3) of the Act is, verification of the correctness of the birth or death. Sub-sec. (3) as it stands, does not contemplate the learned Magistrate to verify the correctness of the date of birth or death or to hold an enquiry in the event of a dispute over the exact date of death or birth. The verification has to relate only to the correctness of the fact of birth or death. In other words, the learned Magistrate will have to be satisfied, that the birth or death had in fact taken place. Deciding the exact date of death or birth in the case of a dispute regarding the date, is beyond the scope of S. 13(3). As stated earlier, information which the persons mentioned in S. 8 are bound to give for registration of the birth or death, could be based on their knowledge or even belief. If after verifying, the learned Magistrate is not satisfied that the birth or death had really taken place, he should refuse to issue an order to register. If, however, he is satisfied that the birth or death as the case might be, had occurred, he has to order registration. He is not concerned with the exact date of birth or death. He has to register as required by the applicant and leave the aggrieved parties, if any, to seek remedy in the civil forum or any other appropriate forum. The object of the Act is only to make available, population data for planning purposes. Indeed, if the registration is made contemporaneous to the birth or death, the evidentiary value of the date of birth or death, would be considerable and would even be conclusive. This however, is only a consequence that incidentally flows from the registration, the main object still being, registering the fact of birth or death."

5. We are at consensus ad idem with the decision of Single Judge of the Madras High Court.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with the direction to authority concerned to issue the death certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)