ORDER : (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) To quash the order dated 13.11.2013 of the Annexure-D on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, through the order of the Lok Adalat, Tumkur, in C.Mis.1134/2013. (ii) To hold the death certificate as per Annexure-E dated 31.01.2014 of the I Respondent through his subordinate officer as void in law and not enforceable. (iii) To issue the writ of certiorari or such other writ or pass such other order as the Hon’ble court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of land in Sy.No.22/2, measuring 3 acres and 5 guntas, situated at Burudagatta Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk—the predecessor of the petitioner, viz., Sri.Siddalingaiah, of whom the petitioners are the legal heirs, had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979 from Smt.Honnamma. 3. The second Respondent, Sri.Mahadevaiah, claiming to be the grandson of late Smt.Honnamma, had applied for the issuance of her Death Certificate alleging that she had expired on 15.06.1975. 4. An endorsement was issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, acting as a Registrar of births and deaths stating that no such registration of the entry could be made in such a belated manner. It is in that background that Sri.Mahadevaiah filed an application before the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 seeking for a direction to the Respondent therein, i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, to issue the Death Certificate of petitioner's grandmother by name Smt.Honnamma, wife of Sri.Kalaiah, stated to have expired in her residence on 15.06.1975 and to make necessary entries in the office ledger of the Deputy Tahsildar. 5. In the said matter, notice was issued to the first Respondent, Deputy Tahsildar. Despite service, the said Deputy Tahsildar was absent when the matter was taken up on 11.11.2013, and thereafter the matter was posted on 13.11.2013 for enquiry/evidence. On the very same day, it is stated that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat at Tumkur for disposal, wherein the second Respondent, Sri.Mahadevaiah filed a memo styled as a joint memo stating that the Respondent agreed to enter the date of death as prayed for by the petitioner and as such, Sri.Mahadevaiah requested Lok Adalat to accept the Memo. The said Memo was in turn accepted by the Lok Adalat and an order was passed virtually directing the Respondent to act as per the joint Memo and the case was closed. 6. On the basis of the said order, Sri.Mahadevaiah wrote to the first Respondent who issued the Death Certificate of Smt.Honnamma indicating her date of death to be 15.06.1975. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. The submission of Sri.T.Govindaraja, learned counsel for the Petitioners, is that: 7.1. The said Smt.Honnamma had expired in the year 1985 after executing a registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 03.04.1979. Respondent No. 2 has used this novel method for obtaining registration of the death of Smt.Honnamma, indicating the date of death to be 15.06.1975 and on that basis, the execution of the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979 is sought to be denied by Sri.Mahadevaiah. His submission is that there is a clear and categorical abuse of the process of Court and Lok Adalat resorted to by Sri.Mahadevaiah, resulting in such an order being passed. 7.2. In fact, by referring to the alleged joint Memo, he submits that there is no agreement or understanding or settlement which has been arrived upon between the Deputy Tahsildar and Sri.Mahadevaiah inasmuch as the joint Memo, certified copy of which has been produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition, is only signed by the petitioner and not by the Respondent. Even in the order passed by Lok Adalat, though it is taken that a joint memo has been filed, it is only the signature of Sri.Mahadevaiah identified by his counsel, which is found on the order sheet at Annexure - D. There is no signature of the Deputy Tahsildar or his Counsel found on the said order sheet. 7.3. It is misusing and abusing the said order passed by the Lok Adalat that Sri.Mahadevaiah prevailed upon the Deputy Tahsildar to issue the Death Certificate. The petitioners, though not a party before the said proceedings, being aggrieved by the recordal of the so-called joint Memo and the action taken thereon are before this Court. 7.4. 7.3. It is misusing and abusing the said order passed by the Lok Adalat that Sri.Mahadevaiah prevailed upon the Deputy Tahsildar to issue the Death Certificate. The petitioners, though not a party before the said proceedings, being aggrieved by the recordal of the so-called joint Memo and the action taken thereon are before this Court. 7.4. An order could not have been passed without verification as regards any action taken by late Smt.Honnamma during her lifetime, inasmuch as the registered sale deed having been executed in the year 1979, she having expired in the year 1985, Sri.Mahadevaiah now seeks to backdate the date of death to 1975 and as such, it was required that necessary paper publication was taken out inviting objections from any aggrieved party or affected party. If such a paper publication had been taken out, the petitioners would have responded to the same, brought the above facts to the notice of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 as also the Lok Adalat. Albeit his submission is that if they had made their representation, the question of reference to Lok Adalat itself would not have arisen. On the above grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the relief sought for be granted. 8. Sri.P.M.Siddamalappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that; 8.1. What is sought for is a Death Certificate of the grandmother of Sri.Mahadevaiah, as regards which the petitioners cannot have any dispute. 8.2. It is on account of petitioner No. 1's husband and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 claiming that a sale deed has been executed on 03.04.1971 when Smt.Honnamma had expired in the year 1975, that Sri.Mahadevaiah filed necessary application for issuance of Death Certificate, the same not having been issued, proceedings were initiated in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 before the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, which was referred to the Lok Adalat, considering that the matter relates to the belated issue or non-issue of the death certificate. 8.3. That the signature of the Deputy Tahsildar is normally not taken in such joint memos, which are filed, there being several 100’s of matters relating to the non issuance of birth and death certificates which are regularly and as a matter of course referred to Lok Adalat. 8.3. That the signature of the Deputy Tahsildar is normally not taken in such joint memos, which are filed, there being several 100’s of matters relating to the non issuance of birth and death certificates which are regularly and as a matter of course referred to Lok Adalat. All proceedings relating to non-issuance of Birth Certificates or Death Certificates being only formal petitions, direction is issued by the Lok Adalat to the Tahsildar and or the concerned Registrar of births and deaths to process the application for issuance of Birth Certificate and or Death Certificate and as such, the absence of signature of the Deputy Tahsildar on the joint Memo is of no consequence. 8.4. A direction having been issued by Lok Adalat has been implemented by the Tahsildar by following due process and as such, no fault could be found therewith. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first Respondent, Deputy Tahsildar would submit that the Deputy Tahsildar has acted as per the directions of the Lok Adalat and no fault can be found with the actions of the Deputy Tahsildar. 10. Heard Sri.T.Govindaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.M.Siddamalappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused papers. 11. The points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 1. Could a matter be referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of both parties? 2. Could the Lok Adalat consider a memo styled as a joint memo, signed by only one of the parties, to pass orders thereon? 3. Whether in proceedings relating to a direction for issuance of a birth certificate or a death certificate in a belated manner, would a public notice be required to be issued inviting objections from third parties? 4. What order? 12. I answer the above points as follows: 13. Answer to Point No. 1: Could a matter be referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of both parties? 13.1. 4. What order? 12. I answer the above points as follows: 13. Answer to Point No. 1: Could a matter be referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of both parties? 13.1. A Lok Adalat is held in terms of the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ LSA Act ’] under the agies of the National Legal Services Authority ( NALSA ), in association with the Legal Services Authority of the concerned State, in the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, ( KSLSA ). The relevant provision in that regard being Section 19 of Chapter VI of the LSA Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 19. Organisation of Lok Adalats .—(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. (2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat. (3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. (5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised: Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 13.2. A perusal of Section 19 of Chapter VI indicates that every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalat at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction for such areas as it thinks fit. It is in pursuance thereof that the Lok Adalat to which C.Misc.1134 of 2013 was referred was held. 13.3. In terms of sub-Section (5) of Section 19, the Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and now brought before the Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. 13.4. A reference can be made, therefore of any case pending or any matter falling within the jurisdiction, cognisance of those cases could be taken up by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 20 of the LSA Act, where any case is referred to in terms of Clause (i) of sub-Section (5) of Section 19. Section 20 of the LSA Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "20 . Section 20 of the LSA Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "20 . Cognisance of cases by Lok Adalats (1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19,— (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognisance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any cither law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in Clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub- section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub- section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub- section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. (7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1).]" 13.5. Cognisance of cases could be taken by the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 20 of the LSA Act, if parties thereof agree or one of the parties thereof moves an application to the Court for referring the case to Lok Adalat for settlement and or if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or the Court by itself is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognisance of by the Lok Adalat. 13.6. The proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20 makes it imperative that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat, under sub-Clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the LSA Act by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 13.7. Thus, if both the parties agree for reference to Lok Adalat in terms of sub-Clause (a) of Clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 20, there will be no requirement of hearing to be provided to the parties. 13.8. It is only if only one of the parties were to make an application to the Court under sub-Clause (b) of Clause (i) or if the Court by itself wants to refer the matter to Lok Adalat, under sub- Clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) that in terms of the proviso, there is a requirement to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 13.9. 13.9. In that view of the matter, if the said provisio is applied to the present fact situation, it is clear that the Memo which had been filed was only by Sri.Mahadevaiah and not along with the Deputy Tahsildar, who was the Respondent in the said proceedings. Thus, there is no agreement between both the parties to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. At the most, it could be said that Sri.Mahadevaiah wanted a reference to Lok Adalat to be made in terms of sub-Clause (b) of Clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the LSA Act. It is on that basis, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. 13.10. As referred to Supra, when only one of the parties were to seek for reference to Lok Adalat, it is required that no reference can be made to the Lok Adalat without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, i.e. the Deputy Tahsildar who had not in actuality or in writing agreed to such a reference. 13.11. This defect though goes to the root of the matter, in my opinion is curable one before the Lok Adalat, and can be so cured if all the parties were to be present before the Lok Adalat and agree for a settlement in writing. 13.12. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that if all the parties were to agree for a matter to be referred to the Lok Adalat, then the Court could refer the matter to Lok Adalat without the requirement of hearing of any of the parties. 13.13. If one of the parties were to seek for reference to Lok Adalat, without the consent of the other party/ies, then in terms of the proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 20, it would be required for the Court to hear all the parties before such reference could be made. 13.14. If the Court were to suo motu refer the matter to Lok Adalat, being of the opinion that it is eminently suitable for settlement, then all the parties would have to be heard and thereafter an order would have to be passed by the said Court. 13.15. 13.14. If the Court were to suo motu refer the matter to Lok Adalat, being of the opinion that it is eminently suitable for settlement, then all the parties would have to be heard and thereafter an order would have to be passed by the said Court. 13.15. Needless to say if a reference to Lok Adalat is made contrary to the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20, such reference is invalid and the Lok Adalat does not get any right to record a settlement unless all the parties are present before the Lok Adalat and submit a settlement in writing signed by all of them identiefied by their respective advocates and the identities are verified by the Lok Adalat. 13.16. In the present case, a memo, though styled as a joint memo, has only been filed by one of the parties to C.Misc.1134 of 2013 and as such, in my considered opinion, the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru could not have referred the matter to the Lok Adalat without having heard the Deputy Tahsildar since there is no consent by such Deputy Tahsildar for such reference. Even before the Lok Adalat, neither the Deputy Thasildhar nor his advocate were present, thus, the defect was not cured for the Lok Adalat to exercise jurisdiction. 14. Answer to Point No. 2: Could the Lok Adalat consider a memo styled as a joint memo, signed by only one of the parties, to pass orders thereon? 14.1. The Memo which has been filed before the Lok Adalat reads as under: JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITINER AND RESPONDENT AS FOLLOWS: The petitioner and Respondent jointly filed this Memo as under: The Respondent has agreed to enter the date of Death as prayed by the petitioner. The petitioner has agreed to pay the required charge for the entry to be made in the register of Death by the Respondent. Hence, this Memo Wherefore, the Petitioner and Respondent humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept the joint Memo filed by under Section in the ends of justice. Sd/- Petitioner Place: Tumkur Date: 13.11.2013 Respondent 14.2. A perusal of the above would indicate that the petitioner and Respondent had jointly filed the Memo, which is not correct inasmuch as the same has been signed only by Sri.Mahadevaiah, but not by the Deputy Tahsildar. Sd/- Petitioner Place: Tumkur Date: 13.11.2013 Respondent 14.2. A perusal of the above would indicate that the petitioner and Respondent had jointly filed the Memo, which is not correct inasmuch as the same has been signed only by Sri.Mahadevaiah, but not by the Deputy Tahsildar. The second paragraph of the Memo styled as joint Memo reads that 'the respondent has agreed to enter the date of death as prayed by the petitioner and the petitioner has agreed to pay the required charges for the entry to be made in the register of death by the respondent'. Now this is again a unilateral statement made by Sri.Mahadevaiah, the petitioner therein, inasmuch as there is no particular agreement by the Respondent - Deputy Tahsildar to enter the date of death as prayed by the petitioner since the Deputy Tahsildar has not signed the said Memo nor can the Deputy Tahsildar agree to the same, there being no particular provision under law, which would entitle such a belated entry of the date of death and issuance of the death certificate without a proper enquiry being conducted. 14.3. It is taking the said Memo on record that the Lok Adalat took up the matter, noted the joint Memo having been filed and directed the Respondent and observed "respondent has to act as per joint memo. Case is closed". 14.4. A Lok Adalat, as indicated above, is held to facilitate settlement of disputes and or litigation between the parties. The Lok Adalat is not vested with any right to determine a dispute between the parties or to issue a direction to any of the parties when there is no such acceptance by way of settlement by any of the parties. This would also be relevant to be taken into consideration with regard to the reference made to Lok Adalat. 14.5. The above petition was filed on 09.10.2013. On 11.11.2013, it was observed that notice was duly served on the Respondent - Deputy Thasildhar who was called out and was noted to absent and the matter was posted for enquiry on 13.11.2013, i.e., within two days thereafter. 14.6. On 13.11.2013, the petition was put up and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Thus, even on 13.11.2013, there was no appearance on the part of the Deputy Thasildhar, the Deputy Thasildhar was neither represented by an advocate nor was he placed exparte. 14.7. 14.6. On 13.11.2013, the petition was put up and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Thus, even on 13.11.2013, there was no appearance on the part of the Deputy Thasildhar, the Deputy Thasildhar was neither represented by an advocate nor was he placed exparte. 14.7. The matter was taken up on 13.11.2013 before the Lok Adalat, i.e., on the very same day and the Lok Adalat observed that the Respondent has to act as per the joint Memo, which does not even bear the signature of the Respondent. 14.8. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Lok Adalat could not have directed the Respondent to act as per joint Memo by accepting a unilateral memo filed by the petitioner stating as if that the Respondent had agreed to something, without the signature of the Respondent. A memo styled as a joint memo, signed by only one of the parties, can only be said to be a unilateral memo and could not have been acted upon by the Lok Adalat to record any settlement. It is a trite law that for a settlement, all the parties are required to agree and/or that a settlement is a contract that is bilateral or multilateral and is never unilateral. 14.9. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that if any settlement were to be recorded by the Lok Adalat, it would have to be so recorded in terms of the agreement arrived at between all the parties, which could be in the form of a joint memo filed by all the parties, signed by all the parties and their respective counsels, or a compromise petition filed by all the parties, signed by all the parties, identified by their respective counsels. 14.10. If a Settlement is recorded without the settlement being signed by all the parties, the recordal of such settlement will be invalid and unenfoceable. 15. Answer to Point No. 3: Whether in proceedings relating to a direction for issuance of a birth certificate or a death certificate in a belated manner, would a public notice be required to be issued inviting objections from third parties? 15.1. In the present case, as can be seen, the contention of Sri.Mahadevaiah, in a petition filed in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 was that Smt.Honnamma had expired at her residence on 15.06.1975, i.e., nearly 38 years prior to the filing of the C.Misc. Petition. 15.1. In the present case, as can be seen, the contention of Sri.Mahadevaiah, in a petition filed in C.Misc.1134 of 2013 was that Smt.Honnamma had expired at her residence on 15.06.1975, i.e., nearly 38 years prior to the filing of the C.Misc. Petition. There is no document that accompanies the said petition in support thereof, except the statement made by Sri.Mahadevaiah that he required the Death Certificate of his grandmother in order to produce the same before the concerned authorities for change of Khata. 15.2. The fact that there was a reference made that the Death Certificate was required for change of Khata would indicate that the Death Certificate was required to be used in respect of an immovable property. The details of the immovable property had not been furnished along with the petition. 15.3. The immovable property in question in the present matter is stated to be the property, which had been sold by Smt.Honnamma in favour of Sri.Siddalingaiah, the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.1979. 15.4. It was firstly required for Sri.Mahadevaiah to have brought the said facts to the notice of the Court as also the dispute between Sri.Siddalingaiah on the one hand and Sri.Mahadevaiah on the other as regards the said property. It was required for Sri.Mahadevaiah to place on record that there is a sale deed claimed to have been executed in the year 1979 by Sri.Siddalingaiah which is much before the date of filing of C.Misc.1134 of 2013. If at all, the same had been brought to the notice of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Tumkuru, the same could never have been referred to the Lok Adalat without issuance of notice to the person's claiming under the sale deed. It is therefore clear that Sri.Mahadevaiah has abused the process of Court and misused the Lok Adalat held under the AGe's of the LSA 1987 to achieve his nefarious purposes. 15.5. This aspect has also been considered by this Court in SMT.MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS VS. DEVEGOWDA AND OTHERS , [ILR 2013 KAR 4703] more particularly, para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 9. The object of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 , is to give legal status to the registration of births and deaths by judicial machinery. DEVEGOWDA AND OTHERS , [ILR 2013 KAR 4703] more particularly, para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 9. The object of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 , is to give legal status to the registration of births and deaths by judicial machinery. A legal duty is cast upon the persons specified in Section 8 to give information to the Registrar of such Births and Deaths. Section 13 lays down the procedure for delayed registration of births and deaths. In case of non-registration within one year of the occurrence of birth or death, the registration could take place under Section 13(3) only on an order made by the Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death. Section 13(3) of the Act reads as under: "13. Delayed registration of births and deaths: (1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (2) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (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 a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx" 10 . Thus, Section 13(3) authorises the Magistrate to pass an order on an application after verification of the correctness of the birth and death. 11 . Rule 9(3) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 states that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidence Magistrate under Section 13(3) and on payment of a late fee of rupees ten. 12 . Neither the Act nor the Rules provide for the procedure for conducting the proceedings when an application is made under this provision. It is true that an entry in the register of births or death is not conclusive evidence of the disputed date of birth or death so also an entry pursuant to the directions of the Magistrate under Section 13(3). The order of the Magistrate binds only the Registrar and not others. (See H.SUBBA RAO VS. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORTION OF INDIA, BANGALORE & ANOTHER - AIR 1976 KAR 231 ). 13 . The order of the Magistrate binds only the Registrar and not others. (See H.SUBBA RAO VS. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORTION OF INDIA, BANGALORE & ANOTHER - AIR 1976 KAR 231 ). 13 . An order passed under this provision consequent to the suppression of material facts may visit with serious civil consequences. Let us take the present case for instance. According to the petitioners, Devaiah had died in the year 1979 and that before his death, he had executed several sale deeds. The petitioners are claiming title to the properties under those sale deeds. The death certificate has been issued pursuant to the order of the Magistrate dated 29.3.2012. It is no doubt true that a contention can be raised by the petitioners in the suit that the death certificate is a fabricated one. But if an appropriate procedure is followed by the Magistrate, the mischief it may cause can be prevented to a large extent. The language contained in Section 13(3) mandates the Magistrate to pass an order after verification of date of death. Verification involves determination or testing the truth or the accuracy of the statements made in the petition. Therefore, the Magistrate cannot blindly direct entry of date of death as sought for in the petition. 17 . Therefore, the applicant has to state atleast the following particulars in the application filed under Section 13(3) of the Act for entering the date of death: (i) The reasons/grounds as to why entry in the death register could not be made earlier and why he could not give information regarding the same to the competent authority. (ii) The purpose for which he wants entry in the death register. (iii) Wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties in the application as also the Jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths. (iv) The particulars of the person/persons, who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register. (v) The Magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 15.6. This Court in Paragraph 17 above has referred to Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as 'RBDA, 1969'] . The said Section 13 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 13 . 15.6. This Court in Paragraph 17 above has referred to Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as 'RBDA, 1969'] . The said Section 13 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 13 . Delayed registration of births and deaths.— (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (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 a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action. 15.7. The coordinate bench of this Court by referring to Section 13 of RBDA, 1969 has categorically stated that if there is an application filed for belated entry of the date of death, Firstly, the reasons / grounds as to why entry in the death register could not be made earlier and why the information could not be given to the competent authority earlier was to be mentioned in the petition. Secondly, the purpose for which the Death Certificate was required was to be mentioned. Thirdly, the wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties to the application. Secondly, the purpose for which the Death Certificate was required was to be mentioned. Thirdly, the wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties to the application. Fourthly, and more importantly, the particulars of any person / persons who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register would have to be provided and Fifthly, the Magistrate could direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 15.8. Therefore, a duty was imposed upon Sri.Mahadevaiah in this particular case to indicate the details of the person / persons who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register, viz., Sri.Siddhalingaiah, who has claimed to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed from Smt.Honnamma in the year 1979. The registered sale deed and the entries made in furtherance thereof being constructive notice to one and all. 15.9. The Registrar of births and deaths in such a situation, in terms of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969, is required to hold an enquiry when belated applications are filed to satisfy himself that the application made is bonafide and no third party is adversely affected by issuance of such Death Certificate. This aspect would equally apply to a Birth Certificate inasmuch as a belated application for a Birth Certificate having been filed if a Birth Certificate is issued belatedly the said Birth Certificate could be misused for various purposes including creation of false identities and as such, in those cases, it would be required to ascertain the veracity and the authenticity of the application filed, whether the applicant is the person who claims to have been born on that date as regard which the certificate is to be issued and that he or she is alive as on the date on which the certificate is sought for, among other aspects. 15.10. The above situation has arisen on account of sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969 requiring any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence to be registered only on order made by a Magistrate of I Class or a Presidency Magistrate, after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 15.11. 15.11. The coordinate bench of this Court in SMT.MUNIYAMMA's case having dealt with in these aspects has in paragraph 18, categorically held that when the particulars mentioned in para 17 extracted above are placed on record, the Magistrate should not only issue notice to the Respondent, but also to those persons who are likely to be affected by the order and he should also direct the issuance of notice in two local daily newspapers one of them should be in vernacular language having wide circulation. The said paragraph 18, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 18 . If the application contains the above particulars, the Magistrate should not only issue notice to the respondents but also to those persons who are likely to be affected by the order. He should also direct the issue of notice in two local daily newspapers, one of them should be in vernacular language, having wide circulation. The Magistrate may also issue such other directions as he may deem fit and proper depending upon the facts of the case. He should hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. If there is a serious dispute with regard to the date of death, the Magistrate has to dismiss the petition with liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. 15.12. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.3 by holding that, it would be required for an applicant who has filed an application belatedly for registration of birth or death in terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969, to provide the following details in terms of the decision in MUNIYAMMA'S case, at the para 17. (i) The reasons/grounds as to why entry in the death register could not be made earlier and why he could not give information regarding the same to the competent authority. (ii) The purpose for which he wants entry in the death register. (iii) Wife and children of the deceased have to be made parties in the application as also the Jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths. (iv) The particulars of the person/persons, who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register. (v) The Magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 15.13. (iv) The particulars of the person/persons, who are likely to be affected by the entry in the death register. (v) The Magistrate can also direct the applicant to furnish such other particulars as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 15.13. Apart therefrom, I am of the considered opinion that further details as under would also have to be provided. i. The details of the properties held by the deceased, along with documents in relation thereto including revenue documents. ii. The details of any transaction in respect of the properties affected prior to the application filed for the issuance of such belated death certificate. Along with documents. iii. The particulars of the persons who are party to such transaction with complete postal address. iv. The details of all the legal heirs of the deceased person, doctor's certificate, if available, indicate the cause of death with the date and time of death. 15.14. The above details to be provided along with the petition. The Magistrate before whom the said matter comes up would be required to conduct a proper enquiry to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the statements made in the application provide enough opportunity to any person who may be affected by issuance of such a certificate. 15.15. If there is a serious dispute as regards the date of death and or any other factors above, the petition under sub-Section (3) of section 13 would have to be dismissed, directing the parties to approach the appropriate Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. 15.16. When a belated application is filed and if none of the above details are provided and all the parties are on record, the Magistrate cannot perfunctorily refer the matter to Lok Adalat without the consent of all parties, there being a duty imposed upon the Magistrate to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the claims made. It is only if all the above particulars are provided and if all the parties who are going to be affected by such an order are made parties and if all of them agree for the matter to be referred to Lok Adalat, can such matter be referred to Lok Adalat. Only making the official Respondent a party would not lead to an order of reference to Lok Adalat, which the Magistrates are well advised to look into. 15.17. Only making the official Respondent a party would not lead to an order of reference to Lok Adalat, which the Magistrates are well advised to look into. 15.17. The Lok Adalat cannot in a perfunctory manner consider a memo filed by one of the parties and direct the Registrar to act on the Memo without compliance with sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of RBDA, 1969, the guidelines laid down in MUNIYAMMA's case supra and that laid down in the present matter. 15.18. Infact the Lok Adalat can only record the terms of the compromise/settlement and no order of direction can be issued by the Lok Adalat as done in the present case. The holding of the Lok Adalat is a mode and methodology of an Alternative, faster and effective resolution of disputes. The Lok Adalat by its functioning improperly and acting in violation of applicable law cannot give raise to more litigations. 15.19. Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that the order passed by Lok Adalat on the basis of a unilateral memo without enquiry being conducted as detailed hereinabove and as per the guidelines laid down in MUNIYAMMA's case is not sustainable in law. 16. GENERAL DIRECTIONS: 16.1. The above matter has arisen on account of the suppression of material facts. It would therefore be required that the possibility of such suppression can be avoided and negated by implementing a proper IT system by the Registrar of Births and Deaths in association with the Revenue Department. Whenever any application is filed before the Registrar of births and deaths of any particular person, the details of all the properties which are standing in the name of such person should be automatically fetched from the database of the Sub- Registrar's office and or the Revenue Department and made available to the Registrar of births and deaths. 16.2. The records available before any particular hospital concerned with the birth and death would also have to be integrated with the office of the Registrar of births and deaths. 16.3. When an application is made, the identity details, viz., the PAN card, Aadhaar card, electoral voter ID card and such other identity cards as may be available of such person should be made available and details thereof to be integrated with the database of the Registrar of births and deaths. 16.4. 16.3. When an application is made, the identity details, viz., the PAN card, Aadhaar card, electoral voter ID card and such other identity cards as may be available of such person should be made available and details thereof to be integrated with the database of the Registrar of births and deaths. 16.4. The Principal Secretary, E-Governance Department and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Director of Municipal Administration are directed to look into the above aspect and any other aspect that may be relevant for consideration and develop a detailed project plan within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit the said detailed project report before this Court. 17. Answer to Point No.4: What order? 17.1. In view of my answers to point no.1 to 3, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The reliefs sought for are moulded. (ii) The order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Tumkur in Crl.Misc.No.1134 of 2013, referring the matter to Lok Adalat is quashed. (iii) Consequently, the order of the Lok Adalat dated 13.11.2013 directing the Deputy Tahsildar to act as per the joint Memo and closing the case is quashed. (iv) The Death Certificate, dated 31.01.2014 issued by the Deputy Registrar in respect of Smt.Honnamma indicating her date of death to be 15.06.1975 at Annexure-E is quashed. (v) The matter is remitted to the II Additional Civil Judge, J.M.F.C., Tumkur for fresh consideration by making the petitioners as parties to the said proceedings conducting an enquiry as laid down hereinabove and as per the decision of this Court in MUNIYAMMA's case. (vi) The Registrar Judicial is directed to forward a copy of the judgment in SMT.MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS VS. DEVEGOWDA AND OTHERS , [ILR 2013 KAR 4703] as also the present order to all judges of the District Judiciary who are handling matters relating to the registration of births and deaths so that the procedure laid down could be followed by them. (vii) The Registrar Judicial is also directed to forward a copy of this order to the Hon'ble Chairman, Karnataka Law Commission to cause such amendment to Section 13 as deemed fit by the Law Commission.