This petition seeks to quash the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 4th April 1969 cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of Mst. Gogri the deceased. The petitioner claims the said land as the adopted son of the deceased.

2. The case of the petitioner is that Mst. Gogri was allotted 8 acres of land by the Joint Rehabilitation Board before 1954. At the time of allotment her family consisted of two members Mst. Gogri herself and Prakasho her daughter. Parkasho was married outside her parents house. Mst. Gogri adopted the petitioner as her son and executed a deed of adoption in his favour. The petitioner thus became a member of her family. As the deed of adoption was a registered document a presumption was created in favour of the adoption under section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. On the death of Mst. Gogri the P. R. O. did not accept the petitioner as the adopted son of Mst. Gogri as he was of the opinion that the petitioner had no right to hold the land as no adoption had taken place. He therefore quashed the allotment in favour of Mst. Gogri and allowed the petitioner to retain only two acres of land. On appeal the Deputy Custodian General Respondent No. 1 affirmed the order of the P. R. O. The respondent No. 1 observed that allotment was not to be governed by the law of succession and the story of adoption was a faked one made with a view to grab the said land. But these observations are unfounded. The petitioner has submitted that he being the adopted son of Mst. Gogri was entitled to retain the land allotted to Mst. Gogri and the respondents could not divest the petitioners of the said land. The respondents contested the petition on the ground that the petitioner could not maintain the writ as the subject matter of the petition related to matters of allotment of land. The rights of an allottee in the land were personal and not heritable or transferable. The adoption of the petitioner has been denied both in fact and in law. It is submitted that the petitioner could not acquire the land of Mst. Gogri who was an allottee by operation of the law of succession, an allotment could not be governed by such a rule.

3. The case was originally heard by a Division Bench of this Court. In the opinion of the Division Bench as the petition raised important questions of law relating to the applicability of the personal law of succession to the case of an allottee and also the scope of section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, and as these points were in the opinion of the D. B. likely to arise in many cases, the matter was therefore felt important to be decided by a Full Bench. It is in these circumstances that this case has been placed before us.

4. Appearing for the petitioner Shri I. D. Grover has contended that the petitioner is the adopted son of Mst. Gogri the original allottee of the land. At the time the allotment was made her family comprised of two members ; herself and her daughter Parkasho. Parkasho was married outside her mothers house leaving Mst. Gogri the sole surviving member. Gogri adopted the petitioner which she could do under the Hindu Law. She executed the deed of adoption in his favour. A presumption was created under section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in favour of the adoption of the petitioner. There was no material brought on the record by the respondents to displace this presumption. It having been established that the petitioner was the adopted son of Gogri the petitioner could legitimately retain the allotted land of Gogri as her adopted son, and the respondent No. 1 could not deny this right to the petitioner. It is urged that just in the case of all other families which expand by births the interests in the property held by the head of the family devolve on the survivors of the family or on the heirs of the deceased according to the operation of law of succession, similarly in the case of families in whose favour allotments of land have been made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document