1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Collector, Sehore by which the application of petitioner for taking him on record as Legal Representative of deceased holder Janki Bai on the ground of adoption has been rejected. This order has been affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure-P/5) and these two orders have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.1.2003 (Annexure-P/6).

2. The holder of land Smt. Janki Bai filed an appeal against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 30.8.1976 declaring the land to be surplus under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short “Act of 1960”). During the pendency of the appeal said Janki Bai died and an application was filed by the petitioner to bring him on record as her Legal Representative on the basis of adoption. This application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector directing that he may obtain succession certificate and thereafter his prayer would be considered. The order of Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. The contention of Shri Jha, learned Senior Counsel is that under the Act of 1960 nowhere it is provided that if a holder dies the Legal Representative is required to submit succession certificate and then only he could be brought on record. Hence, the order of Collector directing the petitioner to submit succession certificate is not only arbitrary but contrary to law.

4. On the other hand Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that the document of alleged adoption (Annexure-P/9) is not a registered document although it was said to have been executed on 5.5.1970 which would mean that said document was executed after commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short “Act of 1956”). Learned Government Advocate further submits that because when the draft statement was issued and inquiry was made by Patwari, had there been any adoption certainly he would have mentioned this fact in his report that deceased holder Janki Bai is having the adopted son. It has also been put-forth by him that if the adoption was valid, on attaining the age of majority, petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority under the Act of 1960 and should have submitted the objection before the order could be passed under section 11(4) of the Act of 1956. Thus, in these facts and circumstance, the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders and therefore prayed that this petition be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part.

6. Nowhere in the Act of 1960 there is any provision that if a holder dies, during the pendency of proceedings under the Act, the Legal Representative cannot be brought on record until and unless an application is filed along with the succession certificate. Since there is no such provision under the Act of 1960, I am of the view that order of Collector dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure- P/3) which has been affirmed by the Commissioner by order dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure-P/5) and the Board of Revenue by order dated 13.1.2003 (Annexure-P/6) are bad in law.

7. So far as the authenticity of adoption deed dated 5.5.1970 (Annexure-P/9) is concerned, it is not a registered document. Although it is not mandatory under the Act of 1956 that deed of adoption should be compulsorily registrable, however, if the deed is registered there shall be a presumption of its correctness under section 16 of the said Act. What is requisite for valid adoption is enumerated in section 6 of the Act of 1956. Clause (iv) of said section speaks that adoption should be made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this