The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that an administrative authority does not have the jurisdiction to test the validity of a registered adoption deed while considering a claim for compassionate appointment. The Court held that under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a registered adoption deed carries a presumption of compliance with the Act unless disproved by a competent civil court.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Shanu Kumar, claiming to be the adopted son of a deceased Municipal Corporation employee. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow, which had rejected his claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that his adoption was invalid due to his age at the time of adoption.
Justice Shree Prakash Singh allowed the petition, quashing the rejection order. The Court observed that an administrative authority cannot dwell into the question of a registered adoption deed being unlawful on disputed facts, asserting that the competent authority for cancellation of such a document is the civil court alone.
Background
The petitioner, Shanu Kumar, is the adopted son of the late Ramesh, who was employed as a Sweeper (Class IV) in the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow. Following the death of Ramesh in harness, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, relying on a registered adoption deed executed on September 6, 2012.
When the claim was not initially considered, the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 554 of 2023. The High Court, vide order dated January 23, 2023, directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide the petitioner’s representation.
In compliance, the Municipal Commissioner passed the impugned order on September 2, 2023, rejecting the claim. The rejection was based on the observation that the petitioner was 25 years old at the time of the issuance of his age certificate on August 2, 2019. Calculating backward, the Commissioner concluded that the petitioner was 18 years old on the date of the adoption deed (September 6, 2012). The authority held that adoption at 18 years is “impermissible as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956” and consequently treated the deed as invalid.
Arguments
Mr. Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the adoption was effected through a registered deed. He submitted that “unless the adoption deed is cancelled or nullified, the status of the petitioner would be as an adopted son of the deceased employee.”
The counsel contended that the validity of a registered adoption deed cannot be examined or presumed by any authority “except apart the court of civil competence.” He argued that the Municipal Commissioner, acting in an administrative capacity, erred in entering into the issue of the validity of the adoption deed.
Per contra, Mr. Namit Sharma and Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the petition. However, as noted in the judgment, they “could not refute the contention that the Municipal Commissioner has no authority to test the validity of the registered adoption deed.”
Court’s Analysis
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh framed the legal question: “whether the administrative authority, while considering the claim of legal heir of a deceased employee for appointment, can test the validity of a registered deed, i.e., adoption deed.”
The Court referred to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which states that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of the adoptive family “for all purposes.” The Court clarified that the phrase “All Purpose” covers the claim for compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules.
The Court placed significant reliance on Section 16 of the Act, 1956, which provides a presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption. The Court observed:
“It is settled law that after registration of any document, the competent authority for it’s disproving or cancellation, is the civil court alone. If any registered document is brought before any administrative authority, the domain of such authority is to examine its genuineness that whether it is actually registered or not, but, whether the contents of the registered deed are such which, in fact, ultimately, took it for cancellation, the same cannot be declined on this ground unless it is cancelled by a court of civil competence.”
The Court reasoned that if administrative authorities were permitted to decline the validity of registered documents based on disputed facts, “the purpose of registration of such a document would be frustrated.” The correct recourse for an authority doubting a deed is to challenge it before a civil court.
Highlighting the legislative intent behind Section 16, the Court noted:
“Perhaps it was in the mind of the legislature that, if someone disproves the adoption deed on the administrative side, the child who has been adopted and has lost his all rights and interest in the property of his natural family (father and mother), would jeopardize, if the protection is not granted.”
The Court concluded that the administrative authority has “no right to dwell into the question of a registered adoption deed being unlawful, unless it is disproved, while adopting the lawful recourse.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 1 SCC 405, stating that the ground for rejection “does not stand on its own legs.”
Decision
The High Court declared the impugned order dated September 2, 2023, as unsustainable and quashed it. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, to “reconsider and decide the matter for the appointment of the petitioner, under the Rules 1974… afresh, within a period of two months.”
The petition was allowed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shanu Kumar (Adopted Son) Versus The Nagar Ayukt Municipal (Commissioner) Nagar Nigam Lko. And 2 Others
- Case Number: Writ-A No. 493 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh
- Counsel for Petitioner: Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma
- Counsel for Respondents: Namit Sharma, Krishna Kumar Pandey
