Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3806 of 2025 ==========================================================
BHAUMIKKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHIRAG A PRAJAPATI(8468) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RITURAJ MEENA for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 26/03/2025
The court upheld the original birth date recorded based on family declaration, emphasizing the need for sufficient documentary evidence for changes in official records.
Headnote:(A) Birth and Death Registration Act - Correctness of date of birth - Application for change of date of birth from 4.6.1985 to 4.6.1984 rejected by Registrar - Petitioner produced documents including Aadhar Card, PAN card, school leaving certificate, and passport to support claim - Registrar upheld original date based on family declaration and lack of documentary evidence at school admission. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Burden of proof - The petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim for changing the date of birth, as the original registration was based on a family member's declaration. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Registrar's decision to maintain the birth date as 4.6.1985, asserting that the correct date is 4.6.1984, supported by various documents.
Findings of Court:
The Registrar's findings were upheld, confirming the date of birth as 4.6.1985, with no merit found in the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the documents presented by the petitioner and the correctness of the birth date recorded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the original birth date recorded was valid as it was based on a family declaration, and the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the change.
Result: Special Civil Application dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel Mr. Rituraj Meena is permitted to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent No.2 waive service of notice of Rule.
3. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner impugns the order dated 1.1.2025 passed by the Registrar, Birth & Death, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation whereby the application for change of date of birth of the petitioner from 4.6.1985 to 4.6.1984 has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced various documents to show that the correct date of birth is 4.6.1984, however the respondent No.2 the learned Registrar has held that the date noted in the birth register in respect of the petitioner is correct since the same was intimated and registered by the elder person of the petitioner’s family. Learned counsel submits that the in support his date of birth, the petitioner has submitted Aadhar Card, PAN card, school leaving certificate and passport. She submits that the said documents ought to have been taken into consideration and the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been corrected to 4.6.1984.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. By the impugned order, the learned Registrar has observed that the petitioner was born on 4.6.1985 and the birth of the petitioner came to be registered by the elder person in his family, being Kanubhai Gokaldas Patel on 6.6.1985 and accordingly, in the birth register, the birth date of the petitioner has been recorded as 4.6.1985. The impugned order further observes that said Kanubhai Gokaldas Patel has got the birth of the petitioner duly registered as per the provisions of law. Further, it has been observed that at the time of taking admission in the school, the birth certificate of the petitioner has not been produced. Taking into consideration the said circumstances, it has been held that the date of birth of the petitioner, i.e. 4.6.1985, has been correctly recorded in the birth register and no correction is required therein. It is further observed that during the personal hearing given to the petitioner, the petitioner has accepted that the birth date shown in the school register, i.e. 4.6.1984, has been orally submitted to the school authorities and not based on any documents. The findings recorded by the respondent No.2 - the Registrar, Birth and Death are not disputed by the petitioner. No interference is called for. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, DISMISSED.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
