Procedural deviation in cancelling an income certificate does not invalidate the order absent prejudice.

The petitioner was issued an income certificate by the Naib Tehsildar, Nirmand, on 29 October 2025 certifying that her family income from all sources did not exceed ₹39,000 per annum.

The certificate was used for participating in the selection process for Anganwari Worker, for which the prescribed family-income ceiling was ₹50,000; the petitioner was selected.

Respondent No. 6 complained that the certificate had been obtained by concealment of material facts, including the petitioner’s husband’s government employment and the pension received by the petitioner’s mother-in-law, Smt. Pingla Devi.

After conducting proceedings, obtaining reports from the Tehsildar and the Electricity Board, and hearing the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer found that the petitioner’s declaration was inconsistent with the official record and that her mother-in-law, recorded as a member of the family in the parivar register, received annual pension of ₹1,84,788.

The income certificate was accordingly quashed on 16 July 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) had jurisdiction to cancel or quash the income certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, notwithstanding paragraph 28.20 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, which refers to cancellation by the issuing authority.

Whether the pension income of the petitioner’s mother-in-law could be included in the petitioner’s family income when the mother-in-law continued to be recorded as a member of the petitioner’s family in the parivar register.

Whether the income certificate was liable to be quashed because the petitioner’s declaration contained incorrect or incomplete information regarding the family’s income and occupations.

Paragraphs 28.1 and 28.7–28.11 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual designate the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar as the competent authority for issuing income certificates and prescribe verification of income from agricultural, horticultural, service, pensionary and other sources.

Paragraph 28.20 provides for cancellation of a wrongly issued certificate after inquiry and hearing, while paragraph 28.21 provides an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil).

The Court held that these provisions constitute procedural directions under the Manual and do not have the force of a statute mandating that only the issuing authority can cancel an income certificate.

The principle that an act required by statute to be performed in a particular manner must be performed in that manner, relied upon in Ashok Thakur v. M.C. Shimla, was distinguished because that case concerned a mandatory statutory requirement and inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 21(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 requires separation of a family to be entered in the parivar register only after the prescribed Gram Sabha procedure is followed.

A party who participates in proceedings without objecting to jurisdiction cannot subsequently challenge the authority’s competence after suffering an adverse decision, particularly where no prejudice or violation of natural justice is shown.

The Court found that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, filed a detailed reply through counsel, and did not object that the matter had to be decided initially by the Naib Tehsildar.

The Sub-Divisional Officer also obtained a verification report from the Tehsildar, who found that the petitioner’s declaration inaccurately described her husband and mother-in-law as agriculturists and stated that no family member was in government or semi-government service.

Since the petitioner received a full opportunity to present her defence and suffered no procedural prejudice, the Court treated the involvement of the Sub-Divisional Officer as, at most, a procedural irregularity under the Manual rather than an act lacking inherent jurisdiction.

On the merits, the petitioner’s own declaration identified Smt. Pingla Devi as a family member, and the parivar register also contained that entry.

The petitioner produced no proof that the legally prescribed process for separation of families had been completed.

Consequently, the mother-in-law’s pension was rightly included in calculating the family income.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had declared total annual family income of approximately ₹45,000 in her affidavit, whereas the certificate certified income not exceeding ₹39,000, further demonstrating that the certificate did not reflect the disclosed facts.

The pension received by the petitioner’s mother-in-law was includible in the family income because she remained recorded as a member of the petitioner’s family and no valid separation had been established.

The writ petition was dismissed, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.