An unregistered adoption deed executed before the 1977 amendment does not invalidate the adoption, and presumption of compliance with the Act applies unless disproved.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Sharad Chandra Singh, learned Additional C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that village Kapoorpur, Pargana + Tehsil- Hapur, District Ghaziabad came under the operation of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. C.H. Act”). In the basic year of consolidation operation, Richpal Singh was recorded over chak No. 10. Richpal Singh expired on 21.1.1975. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that they are the sisters of deceased Richpal Singh, as such, they are entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh. Petitioner also filed an application under the guardianship of his natural mother Smt. Shanti Devi under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, stating that petitioner was adopted by Richpal Singh on 25.10.1974 on the basis of adoption deed executed on 25.10.1974, accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh. The aforementioned applications under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act were registered as Case No. 4/753-75/2012, Mst. Imriti v. Richpal Singh. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. Two issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer. The 1st issue was as to whether Smt. Imriti and Smt. Gomti are entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh as sisters of deceased Richpal Singh and 2nd issue framed was whether petitioner Jagdish is entitled to be recorded in place of Richpal Singh, on the basis of adoption deed alleged to be executed in his favour by Richpal Singh. The Consolidation Officer, considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, has held that petitioner is entitled to be recorded on the basis of adoption deed and claim set up by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Mst. Imriti Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi was rejected vide order dated 4.6.1982. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.6.1982, an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by respondent No. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 197 (Mst. Imriti Devi v. Jagdish and others). The Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard the aforementioned appeal and vide order dated 16.9.1983, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 and directed to record the name of respondent Nos. 3 and 4/Mst. Imriti Devi and Mst. Gomti Devi in place of deceased Richpal Singh. Against the appellate order dated 16.9.1983, a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by petitioner Jagdish which was registered as Revision No. 1480. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 19.6.1984 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief :

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling upon the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to submit their record to the Hon'ble High Court for ascertaining the illegality, if any, and for quashing the order dated 16.9.1983 “Anneuxre No. 3” and order dated 19.6.1984 “Annexure 4.”

3. This Court entertained the matter on 13.7.1984 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute. In pursuance of the order dated 13.7.1984, parties have exchanged their affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that adoption deed in question dated 25.10.1974 does not require registration, as such, the impugned appellate order as well as revisional order passed by the appellate Court/revisonal Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that Richpal Singh in the adoption deed has mentioned that there was no issue from the wedlock of Richpal Singh and his wife and Richpal Singh was deserted by his wife. He also submitted that there is no evidence on record that wife of Richpal S