# Nand Ram & Anr v. District Registrar/Additional Collector, Gonda & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 191
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-25
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 4671 of 2005
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nand-ram-anr-v-district-registrar-additional-collector-gonda-anr-46475
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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:-

## Text

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
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said order was filed by respondent No.2 Smt.
Birja Devi (since deceased) to the Registrar, that
is to say, the Additional Collector, Gonda. The
appeal preferred under Section 72 of the
Registration Act was registered as Case No.58
of 2004. The appeal was heard and allowed by
the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2005 setting
aside the order dated 02.09.1997 passed by the
Sub-Registrar. This writ petition has been
preferred by the two legatees under the Will of
Babulal, to wit, Nand Ram and Sant Ram, who
say that the Registrar/Additional Collector,
Banda had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
under Section 72 of the Registration Act from
the order of the Sub-Registrar, admitting the
Will to registration.

7. It is not in dispute that the order
directing the document to be admitted to
registration was passed by the Sub-Registrar
under Section 40 of the Registration Act.

8. Section 72 of the Registration Act reads:

"72. Appeal to Registrar from orders
of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on ground
other than denial of execution.--

(1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground
of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against
an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a
document to registration (whether the registration
of such document is compulsory or optional) to the
Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is
subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within
thirty days from the date of the order; and the
Registrar may reverse or alter such order.

(2) If the order of the Registrar directs the
document to be registered and the document is
duly presented for registration within thirty days
after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar
shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as
may be practicable, follow the procedure
prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such
registration shall take effect as if the document had
been registered when it was first duly presented for
registration."

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 3 to 6 has submitted that the Registrar is an
Officer superior to the Sub-Registrar and if he has,
on facts and evidence, found the order admitting
the Will to registration to be manifestly illegal, he
was within his rights to set aside the same. It is
further submitted that the order impugned being
substantially just should not be interfered with by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. I have considered the rival submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. A perusal of the provisions of Section
72(1)
of
the
Registration
Act,
extracted
hereinbefore shows that the appeal envisaged
under the said provision is from an order of the
Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to
registration; by no means, from an order admitting
a document to registration. It is well known that an
appeal is a creature of Statute and if the Statute
envisages an appeal from the order of an
Authority, the order being of a particular nature, an
appeal lies to the Appellate Authority as provided
by the Statute. 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. Clearly,
Section 72 does not envisage any appeal from an
order admitting a document to registration,
whether the document is compulsorily registerable
or optionally.

12. This point fell for consideration before
the Orissa High Court in Binod Chandra
Panigrahi @ Binod Panigrahi Vs. Laxmi
Narayan Panigrahi & Others, 2015 SCC Online
Ori 319 where it has been held:

"Similarly Section 72(1) provides for
appeal only against order refusing registration. It
11 All. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
193
does not contemplate an appeal against an order
allowing registration. Therefore, the appellate
order
under
Annexure-6
passed
by
the
Additional District Magistrate holding that the
petitioner's appeal was not maintainable is
legally justified."

13. In this view of the matter, the order
passed by the Registrar/Additional Collector,
Gonda is clearly without jurisdiction.

14. In the result, this petition succeeds and
is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
25.07.2005
passed
by
the
District
Registrar/Additional Collector, Gonda, in Case
No.58 of 2004, Birja Devi Vs. Nand Ram and
Others, is hereby quashed. It is, however, left
open to the respondents or anyone else to
question the validity of the Will in such
proceedings as may be advised, and nothing said
in this order shall be construed as expression of
opinion on the merits of the case of either party,
that may be suited before a Court of competent
jurisdiction.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)11ILR A193
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Misc. Single No. 5045 of 2006

Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.A. Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 182 - A theft has taken place in the
tent of the petitioner and almost all the articles of the
Shamiana valued of approx. sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
was stolen. First Information Report was filed.
Investigation started and final report was submitted
before the court. The lower court accepted the final
report despite a protest petition against the said
report and summoned the complainant under Section
182 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution. This Court
observed that the lower courts rejected the protest
application of the petitioner without examining the
truthness or falsity of the F.I.R. on evidence and
proceeded to prosecute under Section 182 Cr.P.C. for
lodging false report. The proper course of action was
to read the protest petition as complaint so that the
informant could have been given opportunity to
produce evidences and witnesses in support of
complaint made to the police with regard to the theft
in the shop. Therefore, both the impugned orders are
not tenable in the eyes of law.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. (2019) 8
SCC 27 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,
J.)

1. Case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for
the State, Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, Advocate
are present.

3. The instant writ petition is moved under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking
the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
over its subordinate court against the impugned
order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Additional
Session
Judge/Fast
Track
Court
No.12,
Sultanpur in the capacity of the revisional court.
The said revision was moved by the petitioner
against the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by
IIIrd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in