Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 777 (ALL)

NANDINI SADASHIV DUBEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-03-20

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved on account of a certificate dated 26.7.2012 obtained by the respondent No. 3 from the Collector, Unnao which has been captioned as a succession certificate, contending that the District Magistrate or any administrative authority did not have any jurisdiction to issue such a certificate relating to succession. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are being confronted with such a certificate which has been obtained surreptitiously by respondent No. 3 on the basis of false information. The second prayer made in the petition is that the District Magistrate/Collector be directed to hold a proper enquiry and after leading evidence may decide the complaint and cancel the certificate dated 26.7.2012. 3. Shri Tilhari submits that the said succession certificate has been obtained and other documents have been manipulated by the respondent No. 3 and the same is being utilised by the respondent No. 3 which is adversely and prejudicially affecting the rights of the petitioners. 4. The petitioner No. 1 claims herself to be the Widow of Late Sadashiv Shiv Balak Dubey, whereas the respondent No. 3 also claims herself to be the Widow of the same person. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of the brother of Shri Sadashiv Shiv Balak Dubey who is also claiming his rights over the estate of the deceased and contends that the issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the District Magistrate is unjustified and unlawful. 5. The petitioner No. 2 is the son of the brother of Shri Sadashiv Shiv Balak Dubey who is also claiming his rights over the estate of the deceased and contends that the issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the District Magistrate is unjustified and unlawful. 5. We had adjourned the matter to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter and the instructions received from the District Magistrate dated 09th March, 2017 have been placed before us that is extracted herein under : isz"kd] ftykf/kdkjh] mUukoA lsok esa] vij egkf/koDrk] ek0mPp U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ csap] y[kuÅA la[;k% 1441@fofo/k& fnukad% 9 ekpZ th0lh0@2017 2017 fo"k;% fjV fiVh'ku la[;k&4953 ¼,e0ch0½@2017 Jherh ufUnuh lnkf'ko nqcs cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 o vU; ds lEcU/k esaA &&&&&&&&&&&& egksn;] d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d fjV fiVh'ku esa ek0U;k;ky; }kjk mRrjkf/kdkj izek.k i= fuxZr fd;s tkus lEcU/kh 'kklukns'k ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA mDr ds lanHkZ esa lknj voxr djkuk gS fd bf.M;u lDls'ku ,sDV ds gh vUrxZr mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftls tkjh djus ds fy;s nhokuh U;k;ky; gh l{ke U;k;ky; gSA xoZesUV flD;wfjVh eSuqoy ds iSjk 63 ds vUrxZr bl ckr dh O;oLFkk dh x;h gS fd ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ek= 5000@& :i;s rd dh dher ds jktdh; izfrHkwfr;ksa vFkok izkfetjh uksV ds Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa mijksDr eSuoqy esa fn;s x;s izk:i ij gh izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g vf/kdkj Hkh bf.M;u lDls'ku ,SDV ds vUrxZr gh ftykf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k gSA iqUk% Li"V djuk gS fd ;g izek.ki= tks fn;k tk;sxk og dsoy 5000@& ds dher ds gh ljdkjh izfrHkwfr;ksa vFkok izkfetjh uksV ds fy;s gh tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ljdkjh izfrHkwfr;ka mnkgj.kkFkZ fdlh ljdkjh ukSdjh dk osru ,oa mldk ,fj;j] th0ih0,Q0 ,ao bU';ksjsUl dk iSlk vkfn vkrk gSA blds lkFk gh bl Js.kh ds vUrxZr iksLV vkfQl ls fy;s x;s ,u0,l0lh0 ,oa fdlku fodkl i= Hkh vk;saxsaA blds vfrfjDr fdlh vkSj rjg ds èkujkf'k ,oa lEifRr ds ckjs esa ftykf/kdkjh }kjk izek.ki= fn;k tkuk fdlh fu;e esa ugha fn;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fdlh O;fDr dks ;fn fdlh lEifRr ds vf/kxzg.k vkfn esa mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.ki= pkfg;s] rks mls nhokuh U;k;ky; ls izkIr djuk gksxkA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bl dk;kZy; ls tkjh gksus okys leLr mRrjkf/kdkj izek.k&i= esa uksV ds :i esa vafdr fd;k tkrk gS fd ^^mi;qZDr ds vykok vU; dksbZ tk;t okfjl ugha gSA ;g izek.k&i= dsoy jktdh; izfrHkwfr;ka vFkok izkfetjh rFkk /kujkf'k vad eq0 5000@& ls vf/kd u gks ds fy;s ekU; gksxkA vU; fdlh iz;kstu esa ugha yk;k tk;sxkA** vRk% vk[;k lknj lwpukFkZ iszf"krA Hkonh; izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] iz0i= d`rs ftykf/kdkjh] mUukoA 6. A perusal of the aforesaid facts would, therefore, reveal that the certificate captioned as a succession certificate is not a declaration of succession and is also not applicable other than for Government securities or promissory notes to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. The impugned certificate also mentions it. It is only a procedure relatable to the provisions of the Public Debt Act, 1944 as applied for securing release of Government securities or promissory notes under para 63 of the Security Manual. There is no power conferred to make a declaration of succession on the District Magistrate in the said provisions. The petitioners if are seeking succession it is open to them to approach the appropriate Court or forum for such declaration and the certificate dated 26.7.2012 will not amount to a declaration so as to impede their claim before the appropriate forum. 7. At the same time, if the certificate dated 26.7.2012 has been obtained by any manipulation or fraud then it is open to the respondent No. 2 to consider any such material brought before him for re-visiting the issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent No. 3 but the same shall be done only after putting the respondent No. 3 to notice provided it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 8. Disposed off with the said observations.