Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"5.3 The third issue is regarding the death certificate of Sh. Harveer Singh. In this regard, the applicant submitted that the death certificate relied upon by the department was unreliable as it was issued on the basis of an entry made in the Parivar Register which had not been signed by anybody. Moreover, he contended that there were many infirmities in the Parivar Register and the same cannot be relied upon. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. P. No. 528/2009 & Crl.MA No. 10977/2009 (Radhey Shyam Vs. STATE) pronounced on 09.09.2010, in Para-13 of which it has been observed as follows:-

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the village register clearly had an entry that Sh. Harveer Singh had expired on 14.11.2004. The competent authority had issued a certificate certifying this to be the date of death of Sh. Sukhbir Singh. On the directions of the Court, the respondents had again approached the Block Development Officer who had confirmed that this certificate had been issued by the competent authority on the basis of an entry made in the Parivar Register, which showed the date of death of Sh. Sukhbir Singh as 14.09.2004. We have heard the submissions of both the sides. It is trite law that in judicial review re-appraisal of evidence is not to be done. If two opinions are possible then it is not open for the Courts to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the DA/AA. The role of the Courts is limited to see whether the case at hand was a case of no evidence or whether the findings arrived at by the DA/AA were perverse. In the instant case, we find that the applicant has only succeeded in raising doubts about the correction of the content of the death certificate issued by the competent authority. He has not been able to produce any other certificate showing a different date of birth of the deceased Sh. Harveer Singh. Thus, two contending views were available to the DA/AA. One was to rely on the certificate purportedly issued by competent authority and duly counter signed by departmental officials and the other was to reject the same on the ground that it was issued on the basis of an entry made in the Parivar Register, which itself was unsigned by any authority and therefore unreliable. The DA and AA chose the former and relied upon the death certificate. In our opinion, in judicial review, we cannot substitute our judgment on the judgment of the authorities concerned. "