Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19727 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Nath And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petition is being decided at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, without calling for the counter affidavit, under the Rules.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by second respondent, appellate authority/Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau, arising from an order dated 04.03.1994 passed by Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Block Ghosi, District Mau, whereby direction has been issued to restore the parentage of the fourth respondent as son of Barsati in the proceedings under U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1957.
The facts, in brief, which are not disputed between the parties, is that Barsati contracted second marriage with Smt. Ram Dhani during the lifetime of his spouse as he did not have any child. Smt. Ram Dhani was having a son from first marriage, namely, Ram Dyan, the fourth respondent. At the time of marriage, fourth respondent was aged about seven years. In the Pariwar-Register the third respondent, Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat by order dated 04.03.1994 made an entry recording the name of fourth respondent being son of Smt. Ram Dhani instead of Barsati. The order came to be challenged by fourth respondent in appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent after hearing the parties and on perusing the material brought on record by rival parties noted that the fourth respondent in all government/revenue documents, including revenue entry of 1407 fasali, voter list of 1988, in CH From-45, in Khata No. 54 of Plot No. 43B and 33, Aadhar Card I.D., Ration Card, is recorded as son of Barsati. The appellate authority was of the opinion that the fourth respondent was entitled to be recorded as a member of the family of Barsati, accordingly the order dated 04.03.1994 passed by third respondent came to be reversed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fourth respondent has inherited the property of his father in village Khara Mahmudpur (Kurunga). accordingly, it is urged that the fourth respondent be recorded as son of Smt. Ram Dhani instead of son of Barsati.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners apprehend that on the strength of the parivar-register entry, the fourth respondent would claim inheritance rights of the property of Barsati. It is urged that petitioners herein are the sons of Barsati born from the second marriage. In other words, the fourth respondent is their brother born from a different father.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived; by the impugned order mere entry has been directed to be made in the family-register and it is not in dispute that father of the fourth respondent after second marriage was Barsati, accordingly, the name of fourth respondent has been rightly entered in the family register. The inheritance rights of fourth respondent with regard to the property of Barsati is a question that has to be decided by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The entry in parivar-register that fourth respondent is the son of Barsati would not have a bearing on inheritance. Succession rights of the parties cannot be determined in proceedings under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.
On being confronted with the objection and proposition of law, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the proposition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any infirmity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference.
The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 P. Sri.