Allahabad High Court
Bhai Lal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 January, 2010
Author: V.K.Shukla
Bench: V.K.Shukla
Court No. 21 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2645 of 2010 Bhai Lal Versus State of U.P. and others Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J Present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order passed wherein in proceedings under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 name of Budhna and Tara have been directed to be recorded. Said order in question was passed on 11.01.1987 by Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) Block Dumeriyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar against which appeal in question has been filed and said appeal in question has also been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case both the authorities have erred in law in maintaining entries of the name of respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the Parivar register of Mangrey, as such orders are bad in law.
Countering said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, Advocate contended that proceedings in question are summary proceedings and in case petitioner intends to get their right adjudicated vis-a-vis respondent nos. 5 and 6 his remedy lies in filing suit.
Admitted position is that proceedings for entry of the names under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 are summary proceeding in nature. In the present case it has been sought to be contended that after the death of Mangrey, his son Kamta has also died issue less and thereafter Smt. Kaana W/o Kamta has re-married with another male and started living at village Gaddi Bazar, District Balrampur after leaving the house of Mangrey, and thereafter daughter of Mangrey namely Sumundari Devi was merried with one Janak Resident of village Chichurhi, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur. After the death of Mangrey and his son Kamta, entire property devolved upon Smt. Jokhna. It has been stated that Smt. Jokhna has executed Will in favour of respondent nos. 5 2 and 6. It has been stated that respondent no. 5 is daughter of one Ramdeen and respondent no. 6 is wife of the said Ramdeen and they have no concern with late Kamta S/o Mangrey. In the order which has been passed categorical finding has been returned that respondent no. 5 and 6 were connected with Kamta and for this purpose various documents have been relied upon. Once there is evidence and counter claim is being set up by petitioner which would require evidence and is essentially question of fact and in summary proceedings by giving reasons name of respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been entered and said entries has been holding the field, in this background this Court refuses to interfere with the same. However it is made clear that finding of fact which has been arrived at in the summary proceedings are always subject to civil suit. It will be open for the petitioner to file suit for declaration of his right if any. In case any suit is filed then same shall be decided on its own independent merit after appreciation of evidence, in accordance with law.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. Dated 27.01.2010 Dhruv