- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri Awadesh Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act for correction of land records. The petitioner-Satya Narain is arrayed as a 'mad' person through his next friend Shri Gaya Prasad. He made an application before the Sub Divisional Of ficer, Sirathu, District Allahabad to expunge the prefix 'mad1 recorded in the rev enue records after his name. The Tehsildar, Sirathu made a report on 20. 3. 2005, that necessary corrections be made and that the word 'mad' be deleted afterthe name of the applicant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate found that the application was not maintainable and rejected the same on 17. 11. 2005. The recall applica-tion was also rejected on 29. 6. 2007, In the revision under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the Tehsildar's report was based on enquiries made in the village. The Tehsildar had clearly reported that Shri Satya Narain is not mentally challenged person. He is a healthy person and is not of unsound mind. The Additional Commissioner found that the petitioner was not mentally challenged and that someone without any basis had recorded the word 'mad' after his name. According to him it was a clerical error, which could be corrected under Section 33/39 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. Tne petitioner produced a certificate of Chief Medical Officer, Kaushambi before the Additional Commis sioner certifying that he is physically fit and does not suffer from any mental illness. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision and directed that necessary corrections be carried out in the revenue records.
(3.) SHRI Gaya Prasad, claiming to be next friend of the petitioner, has filed this writ petition on his behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application for correction was made by some imposter. SHRI Satya Narain was recorded in the revenue record under the guardianship of his mother Satiniya, who died three years ago. It is contended that SHRI Satya Narain is still 'mad' and that SHRI Kushun Pal-respondent No. 3 (sister's son of SHRI Sundar-father of peti tioner) had made the application with some ulterior motive. The law with regard to mentally challenged person has undergone change after enforcement of Mental Health Act, 1985 (the Act ). The Act has repealed Indian Lunacy Act, 1877, and has recorded a shift in the approach towards men-tally challenged person. The mentally ill person is defined under Section 2 (m) of the Act as a person, who is in need of treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation. The Act provides for Central and State Authorities for Mental Health Services in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, and establishment and maintenance of Psychiatric Hospitals and Psychiatric Nursing Homes to be main tained in accordance with the prescribed norms and conditions and under a li cence under Section 7 of the Act. The Act provides for the admission to these hospitals to be either voluntary under Section 15 or involuntary under special circumstances under Section 19. A reception order may be made by a medical officer incharge of the Psychiatric Hospital under Section 20 of the Act.;