# Krishna Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-26
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 4531 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-dutt-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46471
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - The appeal is not an inherent
right rather it is a creation of statute.
Neither the Court nor the petitioner was able to
find any provision in the policy which provides
for appeal against the order passed by District
Level Security Committee to any higher level
committee. Therefore, no direction can be issued
by this Court for decision of any such appeal.
(Para 20)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Krishna Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185

23. We are thankful to Sri N.K. Srivastva,
learned A.G.A. for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Misc. Single No. 4531 of 2019

Krishna Dutt Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
.......

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Civil Law - The appeal is not an inherent
right rather it is a creation of statute.
Neither the Court nor the petitioner was able to
find any provision in the policy which provides
for appeal against the order passed by District
Level Security Committee to any higher level
committee. Therefore, no direction can be issued
by this Court for decision of any such appeal.
(Para 20)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Zufiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ C
No. 52652 of 2016

2. Akalu Ahir & ors. Vs Ramdeo Ram AIR 1973 SC
2145 (followed)

3. Ganga Bai Vs Vijay kumar & ors. (1974) 2 SCC 393
(followed)

4. Shyam Kishore & ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of
Delhi AIR 1992 SC 2279 (followed)
5. BGS SGS Soma JV Vs NHPC Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 234
(followed)

6. Manish Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2021) 5 SCC 1
(followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

01. The petitioner has filed the present writ
petition seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To issue order or direction thereby
directing the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 to
continue the police protection to the petitioner
for the security of his life and property as has
been provided earlier to the petitioner by the
Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Government
Lucknow till the disposal of the appeal filed by
the petitioner before the opposite party no. 2;

ii) To issue order or direction thereby
directing the opposite party no. 2 to dispose of
the petitioner's appeal which is contained in
Annexure-21 to the petition."

02. When the petition was taken up for
hearing on February 15, 2019, the learned
counsel for the petitioner had referred to
judgment of this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad
Bhuttoo Vs. State of U.P and others (Writ-C
No. 52652 of 2016) decided on 04.11.2016 in
support of his argument that his appeal filed
against order passed by the District Level
Committee to the Divisional Level Committee
be directed to be decided. The learned Single
Judge, while referring to number of judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court, was of the opinion
that the judgment in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo
Vs. State of U.P and others' case (supra)
requires
re-consideration.
The
following
questions were framed:

"(i)
Whether
in
terms
of
the
Government order dated 09.05.2014, a person
aggrieved by the decision of the District Level
Committee has an efficacious and alternative
remedy to approach the Division Level
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee as constituted in terms of the
Government order dated 09.05.2014?

(ii) Whether judgment of the Division
Bench in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo (supra)
decided on 04.11.2016 can be recorded as laying
down the correct principle of law as regards the
Government order dated 09.05.2014?"

03. That is how the matter is listed before
us.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that when the prayer for grant of
security on account of threat to his life was
rejected
by
the
District
Level
Security
Committee on December 14, 2018, against the
aforesaid rejection of his prayer, he filed appeal
before Divisional Level Security Committee.
However, the same is not being decided.

05. It is claimed that petitioner is a social
worker assisting weaker sections of the society and
is also carrying on business in the name and style
of M/s M.K. Enterprises. He also contested the
assembly election in the year 2012 as an
independent candidate from Lucknow West
constituency. On account of continuous threats
received by him, he moved application for grant of
security. As the request was not being considered,
the petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 16850
of 2016 wherein direction was issued for
consideration of his claim. However, the same
having been rejected by District Level Security
Committee, he preferred appeal before the
Divisional Level Security Committee. However,
the same is not being considered. In support of the
argument that a direction deserves to be issued to
the Divisional Level Security Committee for
deciding the appeal pending before it, reliance was
placed upon the order passed by this Court in
Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo's case (supra).

06. The primary argument raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that once there
is a hierarchy of committees provided in the policy
in terms of which threat perception to a person is
to be assessed, the order passed by the authority at
District Level shall certainly be appealable before
the higher authorities at Divisional Level and
thereafter at State Level. Hence, the order earlier
passed by this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad
Bhuttoo's
case
(supra)
does
not
require
reconsideration and a direction be issued to the
Divisional Level Security Committee to hear and
decide the appeal filed by him.

07. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that the order
passed by this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad
Bhuttoo's case (supra) does not lay down
good law. The policy has been framed by
Government for examining threat perception to
the person seeking security at the state expense.
It provides authorities at different levels for
consideration of request for providing the
security for different periods, namely, if the
security cover is to be provided for one month,
the request is to be considered at District Level.
Considering the need security cover can be
extended twice for a period of one month each.
In case in the opinion of District Level Security
Committee, the need of security still continues
even after expiry of the aforesaid period of
three months, the matter shall be referred to the
Divisional Level Security Committee which
can extend the period of security cover for a
further period of three months. In case, the
security cover has to be provided beyond the
aforesaid period of six months, the issue has to
be considered by State Level Committee. Entire
policy no where provides for an appeal from an
order passed by District Level Security
Committee to the Divisional Level Committee
or to State Level Security Committee. Right to
appeal is not inherent. It is a creation of the
statute. Unless it is provided in the statute, no
appeal would lie.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the paper book.
11 All. Krishna Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187

09. The matter has been referred to Larger
Bench for considering the following questions:

"(i)
Whether
in
terms
of
the
Government order dated 09.05.2014, a person
aggrieved by the decision of the District Level
Committee has an efficacious and alternative
remedy to approach the Division Level
Committee as constituted in terms of the
Government order dated 09.05.2014?

(ii) Whether judgment of the Division
Bench in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo (supra)
decided on 04.11.2016 can be recorded as laying
down the correct principle of law as regards the
Government order dated 09.05.2014?"

10. Whether the order passed by this Court in
Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo's case (supra) requires
reconsideration is one of the prime issue. A perusal
of the aforesaid order shows that the petitioner in
that case approached this Court seeking quashing of
an order/letter dated May 12, 2016 passed by
District Level Security Committee rejecting his
representation for providing security cover. One of
the argument raised by learned counsel for the State
was that the petitioner therein has two other forums
for redressal of his grievance, i.e. Divisional Level
Committee and State Level Committee. In turn,
while recording the aforesaid argument, this Court
directed that the petitioner, having efficacious and
alternative remedy to approach Divisional Level
Committee, should avail the said remedy. The
relevant part of the order is extracted below:

"The State Government has issued a
Government order dated 9th May, 2014 for
providing security, which provides that actual threat
perception should exist and that on a mere
apprehension security could not be provided.
Further, the background, antecedent, criminal
history and misuse of security are also relevant
considerations to be examined objectively while
considering the application for grant of security
cover and 3 tier system i.e. District level, Regional
level and State level is provided for redressal of
such dispute.

In view of above, we find that the
petitioner has got efficacious and alternative remedy
to approach Divisional Level Committee but instead
of availing the said remedy the petitioner has again
approached this Court by way of present writ
petition. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition on
the ground of alternative remedy to approach the
Divisional Level Committee. "

11. The question which arises and has been
referred to be considered by Larger Bench is
whether the petitioner has a right of appeal in terms
of the policy framed for providing security cover to
any person on account of threat perception. The
relevant clauses of the policy dated May 9, 2014 are
reproduced hereinbelow:

"विषयः विविष्ट महानुभाि ों की सुरक्षा हेतु गनर,
िैड एिों गार्द उपलब्ध कराये जाने के वलये प्रचवलत
नीवत के स्थान पर नीवत वनर्ादररत वकये जाने के सम्बन्ध
में।

मह र्य,

उपयुदक्त विषय के सम्बन्ध में मुझे यह
कहने का वनर्ेि हुआ है वक ररट यावचका सोंख्या 6509
(एमबी)/2013 (पीआईएल) डा० नूतन ठाकुर बनाम
उ०प्र० राज्य ि अन्य में मा० न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत
अन्तररम आर्ेि वर्नाोंक 02.12.2013 में मा० उच्च
न्यायालय द्वारा व्यक्तक्तय ों क सुरक्षा प्रर्ान वकये जाने
के सम्बन्ध में कवतपय सोंिीक्षण करते हुए सुरक्षा
सम्बन्धी नीवत प्रवतपावर्त करने के आर्ेि पाररत वकये
हैं। मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आर्ेि ों के
पररप्रेक्ष्य में सम्यक विचार परान्त प्रर्ेि के महानुभाि ों
क सुरक्षा प्रर्ान वकये जाने हेतु ितदमान में प्रचवलत
समस्त िासनार्ेि ों एिों वनयम ों क अिक्रवमत करते
हुए महानुभाि ों क सुरक्षा प्रर्ान वकये जाने हेतु
वनम्नवलक्तित नीवत वनर्ादररत की जाती हैः-

(1) सुरक्षा प्रर्ान वकये जाने के सम्बन्ध में सभी
आिेर्क प्रपत्र-1 पर अपना प्राथदना पत्र सम्बक्तन्धत
वजलावर्कारी/िररष्ठ पुवलस अर्ीक्षक क प्रस्तुत करेंगे।
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) सुरक्षा प्रर्ान वकये जाने के सम्बन्ध में
आिेर्क ों की जीिनभय आख्या प्रपत्र-2 के अनुसार
जनपर्ीय/मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत िासन क उपलब्ध
करायेगी।

(3) सुरक्षा हेतु आिेर्न करने पर आिेर्क के
जीिनभय का सही आोंकलन कर वजला मवजस्ट्रेट की
अध्यक्षता में गवठत जनपर्ीय सुरक्षा सवमवत द्वारा
सुरक्षा व्यिस्था उपलब्ध कराये जाने के सम्बन्ध में
वनणदय वलया जायेगा। वजला सुरक्षा सवमवत में
वजलावर्कारी
के
अवतररक्त
िररष्ठ
पुवलस
अर्ीक्षक/पुवलस अर्ीक्षक एिों स्थानीय अवभसूचना
इकाई के प्रभारी, सर्स्य ह ोंगे। जीिनभय पर
आर्ाररत सुरक्षा का औवचत्य पाये जाने पर आिेर्क
क एक माह के वलए सुरक्षा व्यिस्था उपलब्ध करायी
जायेगी। वजसे आिश्यकता पडने पर एक-एक माह
कर र् बार बढाया जा सकेगा। अथादत कुल तीन माह
तक सुरक्षा प्रर्ान की जा सकेगी।

(4) तीन माह से अवर्क अिवर् अथादत आगामी
तीन माह के वलए सुरक्षा की आिश्यकता ह ने पर
जनपर्ीय सुरक्षा सवमवत द्वारा सोंबोंवर्त व्यक्तक्त के
जीिनभय का पुनमूदल्याकोंन, भय के स्र त ों क वचक्तित
कर, जीिनभय क समाप्त वकये जाने के सोंबोंर् में
जनपर् स्तर से की गयी कायदिाही एिों उसके उपरान्त
विद्यमान जीिनभय क दृवष्टगत रिते हुए यथ वचत
प्रस्ताि अपनी स्पष्ट सोंस्तुवत सवहत मण्डलीय सुरक्षा
सवमवत के समक्ष प्रस्तुत वकया जायेगा। मण्डल स्तरीय
सुरक्षा सवमवत का गठन वनम्नवित ह गा-

"मण्डल स्तरीय सुरक्षा सवमवत"

1- मण्डलायुक्त

अध्यक्ष

2-
पुवलस उपमहावनरीक्षक, पररक्षेत्र

सर्स्य

3-
पुवलस अर्ीक्षक, क्षेत्रीय/मण्डलावर्कारी

सर्स्य

वििेष िािा, अवभसूचना विभाग

मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत, सम्पूणद तथ् ों का
गहनता से आोंकलन कर औवचत्य पाये जाने पर
सोंबोंवर्त व्यक्तक्त क तीन माह तक सुरक्षा प्रर्ान कर
सकेगी।

(5) जनपर्ीय/मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत द्वारा
सुरक्षा वर्ये जाने हेतु अपने आर्ेि में वनम्नवलक्तित
वबन्र्ुओों का उल्लेि अिश्य वकया जायेगाः-

● सुरक्षा कवमदय ों की सोंख्या

● सुरक्षा प्रर्त्त कराये जाने की अिवर्

● सुरक्षा का व्ययभार

(6) जनपर्ीय सुरक्षा सवमवत द्वारा वजस
जीिनभय के आर्ार पर प्रथम तीन माह हेतु सुरक्षा
प्रर्ान की गयी है, उस जीिनभय क कम
करने/अपास्त करने के वलए स्थानीय प्रिासन द्वारा
प्रयास वकया जायेगा।

(7) जनपर् एिों मण्डल स्तर पर कुल छः माह की
सुरक्षा अिवर् समाप्त ह ने के 15 वर्न पूिद मण्डलीय
सुरक्षा सवमवत द्वारा सम्बक्तन्धत महानुभाि के जीिनभय
का पुनमूदल्याोंकन वकया जायेगा एिों जीिनभय
विद्यमान ह ने की र्िा में अपनी स्पष्ट सोंस्तुवत सवहत
सुविचाररत प्रस्ताि/जीिनभय आख्या िासन क
विचाराथद प्रस्तुत की जायेगी।

(8) मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत महानुभाि ों क
सुरक्षा प्रर्त्त कराये जाने हेतु जीिनभय आख्या,
वनर्ादररत प्रारुप में िासन क उपलब्ध करायेगी वजस
पर िासन स्तर पर वनम्नित गवठत उच्च स्तरीय सवमवत
द्वारा वनणदय वलया जायेगाः-

(अ) प्रमुि सवचि, गृह

अध्यक्ष

(ब) पुवलस महावनर्ेिक, उ०प्र०

सर्स्य

(स) अपर पुवलस महावनर्ेिक (सुरक्षा)

सर्स्य

(9) प्रमुि सवचि गृह की अध्यक्षता में गवठत
उच्च स्तरीय सवमवत द्वारा मण्डल स्तरीय सुरक्षा
सवमवत की आख्याओों का परीक्षण कर सुरक्षा वर्ये
जाने के सम्बन्ध में वनणदय वलया जायेगा।

(10) उच्च स्तरीय सवमवत द्वारा मण्डलीय सुरक्षा
सवमवत के प्रस्ताि/ जीिनभय आख्या पर विचार करते
हुए अवर्कतम एक बार में 6 माह की अिवर् तक
सुरक्षा वर्ये जाने पर विचार वकया जायेगा। िासन स्तर
से 6 माह हेतु प्रर्त्त सुरक्षा अिवर् पूणद ह ने पर
सम्बक्तन्धत वजल ों से महानुभाि ों की जीिनभय आख्या
11 All. Krishna Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत के माध्यम से प्राप्त ह ने पर
सुरक्षा अिवर् बढाये जाने का वनणदय वलया जायेगा।
उच्च स्तरीय सवमवत द्वारा केिल उन आिेर्क ों क
सुरक्षा र्ेने पर विचार वकया जायेगा वजनक जनपर्ीय
ि मण्डलीय स्तर पर 06 माह हेतु सुरक्षा र्ी जा चुकी है
एिों सुरक्षा बनाये रिने हेतु मण्डलीय सुरक्षा सवमवत
द्वारा सोंस्तुवत की गयी ह ।"

12. A perusal of various clauses of the
aforesaid policy shows that any request for
providing security on account of threat to life is
to be considered by District Level Security
Committee. It can grant security cover for a
period of one month. This can be extended twice
for a period of one month each. The maximum
period for which the District Level Security
Committee can provide security cover is three
months. In case the security cover is to be
provided for a period exceeding three months,
the matter has to be referred to the Divisional
Level Security Committee. In case the claim is
found to be genuine, initially the security is to be
provided for a period of three months. Fifteen
days before expiry of period of six months, the
threat perception to the applicant is to be
assessed again by the State Level Committee on
the basis of inputs received from various
agencies/ authorities and at one time security
cover shall be provided for a period of six
months.

13. From the aforesaid clauses of the
policy, it clearly emerges that the committees
have been formed at different levels for
providing security cover for different periods.
The authorities/ committees have not been
constituted in hierarchy to be appellate authority
over the decision taken by lower authority.
Neither we could find nor could learned counsel
for the petitioner show any provision conferring
right upon the petitioner to prefer an appeal
against an order passed by lower level
committee to a higher level committee.

14. The issue as to whether right of appeal
is inherent or creation of statute is no more res
integra. The issue has been resolved and set at
rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
cases.

15. As long back as in 1973, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Akalu Ahir and others Vs.
Ramdeo Ram AIR 1973 SC 2145 held:

"... it is necessary to bear in mind that
an appeal is a creature of statute and there is no
inherent right of appeal."

16. In Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and
others (1974) 2 SCC 393, the Court in para-15
held:

"15. It is thus clear that the appeal filed
by defendants 2 and 3 in the High Court was
directed originally not against any part of the
preliminary decree but against mere finding
recorded by the trial court that the partition was
not genuine. The main controversy before us
centers round the question whether that appeal
was maintainable on this question the position
seems to us well-established. There is a basic
distinction between the right of suit and the right
of appeal. There is an inherent right in every
person to bring suit of a civil nature and unless
the suit is barred by statute one may, at one's
peril, bring a suit of one's choice. ... A suit for its
maintainability requires no authority of law and
it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the
position in regard to appeals is quite the
opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore an appeal for its maintainability
must have the clear authority of law. That
explains why the right of appeal is described as a
creature of statute."
 (emphasis added)

17. In Shyam Kishore and others Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1992 SC
2279 the Court referring to its earlier judgment
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Ganga Bai's case (supra), in para 28,
observed as under:

"28. In Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar,
(1974) 3 SCR 883: (AIR 1974 SC 1126)
Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) held
that "there is a basic distinction between the
right of suit and the right of appeal. There is an
inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a
civil nature, but the right of appeal inheres in no
one
and
therefore
an
appeal
for
its
maintainability must have the clear authority of
law."

18. In BGS SGS Soma JV Vs. NHPC
Limited (2020) 4 SCC 234, in para 15, it was
observed as under:

"15. ... an appeal is a creature of
statute, and must either be found within the four
corners of the statute, or not be there be at all."

19. In Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India
and others (2021) 5 SCC 1 referring to its
earlier decision in the Court said:

"386. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and
others Vs. Union of India and others (2004) 4
SCC 311 the validity of certain provisions of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, was questioned. ... this
court also noted the distinction between a civil
suit and an appeal ..., it is apposite that we notice
the following:

"59. ... We may refer to a decision of
this Court in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar
(1974) 2 SCC 393 where in respect of original
and appellate proceedings a distinction has been
drawn as follows:

"15. ...There is a basic distinction
between the right of suit and the right of appeal.
There is an inherent right in every person to
bring a suit of civil nature and unless the suit is
barred by statute one may, at one's peril, bring a
suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit,
howsoever frivolous to claim, that the law
confers no such right to sue. A suit for its
maintainability requires no authority of law and
it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the
position in regard to appeals is quite the
opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore an appeal for its maintainability
must have the clear authority of law. That
explains why the right of appeal is described as a
creature of statute."

20. In view of the aforesaid authoritative
enunciation of law by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court that the appeal is not an inherent right
rather it is a creature of statute, in our opinion
there being no provision in the policy for appeal
against the order passed by District Level
Security Committee to any higher level
committee, no appeal will be maintainable and
no direction can be issued for decision of any
such appeal filed by the petitioner.

21. The questions referred for decision to
Larger Bench, thus, are answered:

Question (i) is answered in negative
holding that there is no right of appeal to any
person to approach the Divisional Level
Committee from any order passed by the District
Level Security Committee, rejecting his request
for grant of security cover.

Question (ii) is also answered in
negative holding that the order passed by this
Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhuttoo's (supra)
does not lay down correct law and cannot be
referred to as a precedent for seeking a direction
for decision of appeal with reference to the
Government Order dated May 9, 2014.

22. So far as the merits of the controversy
is concerned, the prayer made by the petitioner
is that he may be provided security cover on
account of alleged threat perception in his
opinion. Once the competent authority in the
Government has already examined the issue and
found that there is no threat to the petitioner and
11 All. Nand Ram & Anr. Vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector, Gonda & Anr.
191
no security is required to be given at State
expenses, we do not find any reason to take a
different view for the reason that this Court does
not have any expertise to assess the threat
perception to any person. Hence, even the relief
prayed for on merits is also misconceived.

23. The petition is, accordingly, disposed
of.
----------
(2021)11ILR A191
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Misc. Single No. 4671 of 2005

Nand Ram & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
District Registrar/Additional Collector, Gonda &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
U.S. Sahai, Indrajeet Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Maya Ram Yadav, Ram Janak Yadav,
Rishabh Tripathi, S.P. Tripathi, Shastri Prasad
Tripathi

A. Civil Law - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 72 - The Court held that the
Section 72 does not envisage any appeal
from an order admitting a document to
registration, whether the document is
compulsorily registerable or optionally.
There is no inherent right of appeal available
to
a
party,
merely
because
an
Officer
otherwise superior in rank to the one, who has
passed the original order is available. (Para 11
)

Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Binod Chandra Panigrahi @ Binod Panigrahi Vs
Laxmi Narayan Panigrai & ors. 2015 SCC Online Ori
319 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

Order on C.M. Application No.84166 of
2019

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The application for impleadment is
allowed.

3. Let the applicant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, as
per particulars shown in the application be
impleaded as party respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6
to the writ petition during the course of the day.

Order on the memo of petition

4. Supplementary affidavit filed today is
taken on record.

5. Heard Mr. Indrajeet Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anant Pratap
Singh, learned State Law Officer, appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1. No one appears on
behalf of respondent Nos.2/1 and 2/2. Mr.
Rishab Tripathi, appears on behalf of the newly
impleaded respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. No
counter affidavit has been filed by the State.

6. The short point involved in this petition
is whether an order admitting a document to
registration passed by the Sub-Registrar under
Section 40 of the Registration Act, is amenable
to appeal under Section 72(1) of the Act, last
mentioned, before the Registrar. Here an order
directing registration of a Will dated 02.09.1997
executed by one Babulal in favour of Nand Ram
and Sant Ram, sons of Bachchu Lal, was
directed to be admitted to registration vide order
dated 02.09.1997, passed by the Sub-Registrar,
Tarabganj, District Gonda. An appeal from the