Amjad Bagban S/o Babu Miya Age 38 Yrs occ Business. R/o Aland vs The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through The Cheif Officer TMC, Aland — 3786/2025

Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(iii). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 07th March 2026.

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAKB220111012025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3786/2025

Filing Date

06-12-2025

Registration No

3786/2025

Registration Date

06-12-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND

Judge

324-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Aland

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Acts & Sections

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT Section 13(iii)

Petitioner(s)

Amjad Bagban S/o Babu Miya Age 38 Yrs occ Business. R/o Aland

Adv. Devanand Hodloorkar

Respondent(s)

The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through The Cheif Officer TMC, Aland

Hearing History

Judge: 324-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Aland

07-03-2026

Disposed

10-02-2026

ORDERS..

17-12-2025

NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Orders

The court allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the respondent to register the petitioner Amjad Bagban's birth date as 01-01-1987 and issue a birth certificate. The court found that the petitioner had discharged his burden through credible oral and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card), and since the respondent failed to contest the claim despite being served notice, the petitioner's assertions went unchallenged. The court clarified that this order shall not be conclusive proof of the birth date if disputed in future civil or criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the respondent to register the petitioner Amjad Bagban's birth date as 01-01-1987 and issue a birth certificate. The court found that the petitioner had discharged his burden through credible oral and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card), and since the respondent failed to contest the claim despite being served notice, the petitioner's assertions went unchallenged. The court clarified that this order shall not be conclusive proof of the birth date if disputed in future civil or criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case