N.S.RAVI, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against an order passed by learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, on 15-5-2000 in Revision No. 262/16 of 1998-99 arising out of an order passed by S.D.O. Mehrauni on 15-9-98. By the impugned order S.D.O. has disapproved the resolution passed by L.M.C. Bandhpur for allotment of agricultural land pertaining to the revisionist on the ground that on the date of the resolution the revisionist was minor as per the report of the tehsil concerned bassed on a certificate issued by Principal Secondary School Bandhpur. The main contention of the revisionist is that the learned S.D.O. did not rely on the evidence adduced by him regarding his age and wrongly placed reliance on the tehsil report of the school certificate issued by the Principal.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. The facts of the case are that a resolution for allotment of agricultural land in favour of these 209 persons was passed by L.M.C. Bandhpur on 7-1-1995. Out of 209 persons the S.D.O. Mahrauni did not approve the resolution of the L.M.C. in favour of few on the ground that they were not eligible for allotment. Against this order a Revision No. 32 of 95-96 was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Jhansi which was allowed and the case was remended to the learned S.D.O. to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the affected persons. The learned S.D.O. again passed the order on 15-9-98 whereby two persons Charan Dass son of Chukhre and Sudama son of Chandu were declared ineligible for allotment and rest were found legible. A review application was also dismissed by order dated 26-5-99 in this regard. Against these two orders a revision was again filed before the learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi bearing Revision No. 262/16/98-99 which was partly allowed in fvour of Charan Dass but was not allowed in favour of Sudama. Revisional Court again relied on the certificate issued by Principal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Belpur and did not rely on the copy of voter list and copy of Parivar Register pertaining to the year 1995-99 on the presumption that voter list might have been prepared after 7-1-1995, the date of resolution by L.M.C. because it has entered the date as 1-1-1995 whereas the certificate issued by the concerned school was dated 28-5-88, i.e., seven years after the said alloment.
(3.) I am afraid that the trial Court as well as the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Jhansi Division have committed error of law in not accepting the uncontroverted evidence regarding the proof of age and wrongly placed reliance on a so called certificate of a school which is not even on the prescribed formate. Moreover, they should have kept it in mind that so for as the educational certificates are concerned the only conclusive proof of age is the High School certificate for a person and no other document less than that. The certificate issued by a school not being a certificate of the High School cannot be relied on, specially when there were other documentary proofs to show the age of a person. Parivar Register and Voter list are legal documents which cannot be thrown away just like that, s pecially when there was nothing on record to show that these documents were not genuine or that there was anything to controvert them. The learned lower Courts ought to have acted little more judiciously in evaluation of evidence.;