- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Pleadings are complete and the learned Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 9-7-2004 by which a review application filed by the respondent No. 5 has been allowed. Bhagwan Deen, Ram Deen, Ram Taul and Vidya Deen were brothers, Kashi Ram was the son of Bhagwan Deen and Smt. Sonara Devi. Ram Deen died first followed by Ram Taul who died in 1990. It is alleged that Bhagwan Deen, also died followed by his wife, Kashi Ram and Vidya Deen were the only heir and legal representative of their property. It is alleged that Onkar Nath Upadhya, father of the respondent No. 5 and Pradhan of the village, taking advantage of the fact that Kashi Ram had died a bachelor on 11-5-1993, forged entries in the Family Register showing his daughter Prem Lata as daughter of Kashi Ram and thereby got a mutation in the revenue records made in her name as his heir. When Vidya Deen came to know about the fraudulent entry in the Family Register, he being the sole heir of Kashi Ram filed an application before the Mukhya Vikas Adhikari on 7-10-1993 seeking correction in the Family Register and for expunging the entries made therein showing Prem Lata as daughter of Kashi Ram. The Mukhya Vikas Adhikari directed the Khand Vikas Adhikari for making an enquiry, whereafter the A. D. O. (Panchayat) was directed to enquire into it. However, it is alleged, no action was taken on his application even after expiry of three months, forcing Vidya Deen to file an appeal under Section 6-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for expunging the forged entry in the family register. Objections were filed by the respondent No. 5 and the original record was summoned by the appellate Court. After the parties has filed their detailed written submissions, the appellate authority after detailed discussions allowed the appeal vide order dated 29-3-1997 and directed deletion of the name of respondent No. 5 from the family register. During the pendency of the appeal, Vidya Deen executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner on 17-4-1996. However, the respondent No. 5 filed a review application dated 31-3-1997 on the ground that the maintainability of the appeal had not been decided. A detailed objection was filed by Vidya Deen challenging the maintainability of the review application. In the meantime the order of the appellate Court was given effect to and the entries in favour of respondent No. 5 was deleted from the family register. During the pendency of the review petition Vidya Deen died on 11-9-1998 and the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid registered will was substituted. By the impugned cryptic order the review application has been allowed holding that the appellate order appeared to be ex parte and recalled the order dated 29-3-1997 which is impugned in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that there is no provision of review under the 1970 Rules and, therefore, the review application and the order passed therein are non est. He has further urged that assuming there was power of review, no case for review was made out.
(3.) HOWEVER, learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the appeal itself was not maintainable and thus this Court should not exercise its discretion of quashing the impugned order as it would result into enforcement of another illegal order. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to examine the scheme of the Rules. The 1970 Rules were framed under Section 110 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It stipulates preparation and maintenance of a family register in Form 'a' prescribed therein containing family wise names and other particulars of persons constituting the family and residing in the village pertaining to the Gaon Sabha. The Secretary of the Gaon Sabha is to make necessary changes in the register at the beginning of each quarter and such changes are to be placed before the next meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Rule 5 empowers the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) for correction of any entry in the family register and on his passing an order the secretary is obliged to correct the register accordingly. Under Rule 6 any person whose name is not included in the family register may apply to the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and who after such enquiry, as he thinks proper, may direct the name to be included therein. Any person aggrieved by an order under Rule 5 or 6 is entitled to file an appeal within 30 days before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 6-A and which decision is deemed final. It is, thus evident that on an application made for correction of an existing entry under Rule 5 or for inclusion of a name under Rule 6 in the family register, the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) is obliged to pass an order therein for such correction or inclusion as prayed. Though, no limitation is prescribed under any of the aforesaid two rules, the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) is obliged to Act within a reasonable time.;