SUDAMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against an order passed by learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, on 15-5-2000 in Revision No. 262/16 of 1998-99 arising out of an order passed by S.D.O. Mehrauni on 15-9-98. By the impugned order S.D.O. has disapproved the resolution passed by L.M.C. Bandhpur for allotment of agricultural land pertaining to the revisionist on the ground that on the date of the resolution the revisionist was minor as per the report of the tehsil concerned bassed on a certificate issued by Principal Secondary School Bandhpur. The main contention of the revisionist is that the learned S.D.O. did not rely on the evidence adduced by him regarding his age and wrongly placed reliance on the tehsil report of the school certificate issued by the Principal.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(3.) I am afraid that the trial Court as well as the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Jhansi Division have committed error of law in not accepting the uncontroverted evidence regarding the proof of age and wrongly placed reliance on a so called certificate of a school which is not even on the prescribed formate. Moreover, they should have kept it in mind that so for as the educational certificates are concerned the only conclusive proof of age is the High School certificate for a person and no other document less than that. The certificate issued by a school not being a certificate of the High School cannot be relied on, specially when there were other documentary proofs to show the age of a person. Parivar Register and Voter list are legal documents which cannot be thrown away just like that, s pecially when there was nothing on record to show that these documents were not genuine or that there was anything to controvert them. The learned lower Courts ought to have acted little more judiciously in evaluation of evidence.