High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-21Petition disposed of with directions: Ext.P7 se...

P. Abbas v. Secretary, Chelembra Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 28594 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-07-21
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P7 set aside; petitioner to approach Jurisdictional Magistrate with sufficient documents for correction; Magistrate will conduct necessary inquiry and pass orders in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions: Ext.P7 set aside; petitioner to file before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for correction of the death date, who, after proper inquiry, shall pass orders in accordance with law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Abbas aged 66 years s/o Moyutty, Pathiyat House, Chelambra (P.O.), Malappuram District, PIN - 673 634

Respondents

The Secretary, Chelembra Grama Panchayath, Chelembra, Malappuram District
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur, Malappuram District
State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Institutions, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Bindu
• Sri. Prasanth M.P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Prashanth Kumar G.C.
• R. Sudhish

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. Abbas, seeks correction of the date of death recorded in Ext P4 death certificate of his father, who died on 5 November 1995. The death was entered in the Panayappuram Mosque register (Ext P1) and, due to inadvertent error in the Ext P2 application, the death date appeared as 5 November 1996. The 2nd respondent, noting the registration delay beyond one year from the date of death, obtained sanction by GO No. 124/72 (Ext P3) to register, but the date in Ext P4 still reflects 1996. On discovering the error, the petitioner filed Ext P6 for correction along with Ext P5 from the mosque committee and Ext P1, but Ext P7 rejected the request, holding that the first respondent cannot correct the death certificate. The court held that genuine mistakes can be corrected under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and that Section 13 empowers a Magistrate of the First Class/Presidency Magistrate to verify the birth/death after one year. The court noted the Kausalya P.K. v. Secretary, Kaiparambu Panchayat, as a guiding point and clarified that the jurisdictional Magistrate alone has the power to determine correctness and issue orders. Consequently Ext P7 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with documents for correction, who will proceed under law. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969Section 13Section 13(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's counsel argued that the death certificate incorrectly records the death date as 5.11.1996 due to an inadvertent error in the Ext P2 application. Ext P3 sanction order also reflects the wrong date, and Ext P4 repeats it. After discovering the mistake, the petitioner filed Ext P6 for correction along with Ext P5 from the mosque committee and Ext P1, but Ext P7 was rejected on the basis that the 1st respondent cannot amend the death certificate. The petitioner contends that genuine mistakes should be corrected under the Act, and that Section 13 empowers the Magistrate to verify the correctness of death records when the registration occurs after one year. The court should permit correction by the competent Magistrate, supported by proper documents, rather than a blanket rejection by the 1st respondent. The decision in Kausalya P.K. v. Secretary, Kaiparambu Panchayat is cited to support this interpretive approach.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintained that the death certificate is issued on the basis of the application. They contended there is no fault in Ext P4 and that the Act and its rules do not empower the 1st respondent to adjudicate the correctness of the death; instead, Section 13(3) vests verification with the Jurisdictional Magistrate. They argued that Ext P7 correctly refused correction since the act of registration after one year requires magistrate verification and the first respondent cannot correct the certificate by mere administrative order.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kausalya P.K. v. Secretary, Kaiparambu Panchayat and others	2019 (2) KHC 677	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the permissible approach toward corrections of birth/death entries and the role of magistrate; the decision’s conclusions are not directly adopted but used for context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. Abbas v. Secretary, Chelembra Grama Panchayath and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **1** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P.ABBAS AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MOYUTTY, PATHIYAT HOUSE, CHELAMBRA (P.O.), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634. BY ADVS. R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE SECRETARY, CHELEMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 673 634. 2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 680 581. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. BY ADVS. PRASHANTH KUMAR G.C., R1 R.SUDHISH ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 28954 of 2020** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of July, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : _“i) Issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get Ext P4 death certificate of his father corrected as requested by him vide Ext P6 application._ _ii) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P7 and may quash the same as highly unjust, illegal and arbitrary. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1[st] respondent to forward Ext P6 application submitted by the petitioner to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction for issuing the Death Certificate of the father of the petitioner as provided under Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969._ _iv) Grant such other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem to be fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]_ **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **3** 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father passed away on 5.11.1995 and his death was omitted to be registered officially in accordance with the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short 'Act, 1969'). The death of the petitioner's father was properly entered in the Register of Panayappuram Mosque, wherein his body was buried. Ext.P1 is the details. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1[st] respondent for registration of the death of his father. In Ext.P2 application, due to an inadvertent mistake, date of the death of petitioner's father was mentioned as 5.11.1996. The 1[st] respondent forwarded Ext.P2 application to the 2[nd] respondent since the application for registration of death was not submitted within the stipulated time of one year form the date of the death. The 2[nd] respondent on the strength of Government Order, GO No. 124/72 dated 2.8.1972 has granted permission for registration of the death of the father of the petitioner vide Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3 also, the date of the death of the petitioner's father **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020 4** happened to be shown as 5.11.1996 instead of 5.11.1995 because of the error in the application. In pursuance to Ext.P3, the 1[st] respondent has issued Ext.P4 death certificate to the petitioner. Ext.P4 death certificate of the petitioner's father contains the date of death as 5.11.1996 instead of 5.11.1995. According to the petitioner, the above mistake happened in the death certificate only because of the inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner while filing the application for issuance of death certificate. The said mistake came to the notice of the petitioner only recently when the petitioner happened to verify certain documents executed after the death of his father. Immediately on noticing the mistake, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application before the 1[st] respondent for the correction of the mistake of the death certificate along with Ext.P5 certificate issued by the committee of the Mosque and the copy of Ext.P1. The first respondent rejected P6 application vide Ext.P7 order stating that since Ext.P3 order of sanction issued by the 1[st] **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **5** respondent cannot make any correction on the death certificate. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions. The counsel submitted that a genuine mistake committed by the petitioner in submitting the application resulted in the mistake in Ext.P4. The counsel takes me through Ext.P1 register kept in the Mosque. But in Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, it is wrongly stated as '5.11.1996'. The counsel for the 1[st] respondent submitted that death certificate is issued based on the application submitted and there is nothing wrong on the side of the 1[st] respondent in issuing such a certificate. 5. After hearing both sides, I think these type of genuine mistake is to be corrected by the authorities, in the light of the specific provisions in the Act, 1969. This Court considered this **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **6** ## point in _**Kausalya P.K v. Secretary, Kaiparambu Grama**_ ## _**Panchayat and others**_ . [2019 (2) KHC 677]. _9. Considering the provisions under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder, I am of the opinion that the provisions contained in Ext.R1(b) Circular cannot be sustained as far as issuance of non-availability certificates is concerned. Section 13 of the Act, 1969 provides that 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. Therefore, it is for the Magistrate of the First Class/ Presidency Magistrate to make necessary verification of the correctness of birth or death. Such power and duty entrusted with the Magistrate can be exercised only by the Magistrate. Neither the Act nor the Rules confers a power or casts any duty on the 1st respondent to make a factual adjudication on birth or death of any person, which is sought to be registered on or after one year of the birth/death._ _10. The requirement of the petitioner is to get a non-availability certificate from the 1st respondent in respect of the death of her husband. What is to be certified by the 1 st respondent is that there are no records available in the office of the 1st respondent to show that the death has been registered. Such a certificate is required in order to register the death of the late husband of the petitioner. Insistence on non-availability certificate is to avoid multiple registration of a death. 11. When Section 13(3) of the Act, 1969 empowers the Magistrate of the First Class to verify the correctness of a birth or death sought to be registered after one year, it is for the Magistrate alone to make an enquiry or verification in the matter. Under the guidelines issued in a Circular of the Executive Government, the 1st respondent cannot usurp that power, make an enquiry and decide the issue. Ext.P1 is, therefore, unsustainable.”_ 6. From the above, it is clear that the Jurisdictional Judicial First Class Magistrate is the competent authority to pass orders in these matters. Therefore, Ext.P7 can be set aside and the **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **7** petitioner can be allowed to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with an application for correction and the learned Magistrate will consider the same, in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : ## 1)Ext.P7 is set aside. 2)The petitioner is free to submit an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court with sufficient documents to correct the date of death of his father and if such an application is filed, the Jurisdictional Magistrate will consider the same and after conducting the necessary enquiry, will pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. SD/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 28594 OF 2020** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28594/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER AT PANAYAPPURAM MOSQUE. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04/05/2010. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/07/2010. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/08/2010. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE OF PANAYAPPURAM MOSQUE DATED 05/01/2020. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/01/2020.