# Sri Vinod Kumar v. D.N. Agarwal,HJS Registrar (L) High Court, Allahabad & another

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-05-26
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 625 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-vinod-kumar-v-d-n-agarwal-hjs-registrar-l-high-court-allahabad-another-40393
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Act-
Ss.
4,6,17-
Acquisition of land for public purpose-
writ against- plea that no vesting since
possession
not
taken-
Held,
once
possession taken by Government on
7.8.2001, even if owner of land resumed
possession, such act can not effect the
consequences of vesting.

Once possession of the land was taken
by the Government even if thereafter the
owner of the land entered upon the land
and resumed possession such act does

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
430
others. If there is a conflict between law
and equity, it is the law which has to
prevail, even if it causes hardship to some
persons. No doubt if there is some
ambiguity
in
a
rule
equitable
considerations may apply, but in the
present case the provision of clause 3.4 is
very clear.

13. For the reasons given above, this
appeal is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 625 of 2004

Sri Vinod Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.N. Agarwal, HJS Registrar (Listing) High
Court, Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.R. Sirohi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satya Narain Mishra
S.C.

Principle of Natural Justice-Imposition of
exemplary costs by Single Judge upon
Registrar (Listing)-Special Appeal- No
opportunity of hearing given before
imposition of costs-Court should give
opportunity
before
making
adverse
remarks-order set aside-

In our opinion directing the Registrar
(Listing) of this Court to pay exemplary
cost of Rs.500/- was, with great respect
to
the
learned
Single
Judge,
unwarranted
and
uncalled
for,
particularly when these adverse remarks
was
passed
without
giving
any
opportunity of hearing. The rules of
natural
justice
require
that
before
adverse remarks made the Court should
give opportunity of hearing to the
person, but no such opportunity appears
to have been given to the Registrar
(Listing) before passing the impugned
order dated 18.5.2004.

 Para 6

The
Registrar
General
is
therefore
directed to prepare a scheme so that in
future all documents filed in the Registry
are placed as soon as possible thereafter
on the record so that the functioning of
the Court may not suffer.

 Para 7

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This special appeal has been filed
against the impugned interim order of the
learned Single Judge dated 18.5.2004 by
which the Registrar (Listing) of this Court
has been directed to pay exemplary cost
of Rs. 500/- because some affidavit was
not available on the record.

3. Since the facts are not in dispute it
is not necessary to call for a counter
affidavit.

4. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 18.5.2004 shows that the learned
Single Judge was unhappy because the
affidavit dated 5.4.2004 filed by the
petitioner in the Registry was not
available on the record. While we fully
share the concern of the learned Single
Judge that the documents filed in this
Court should as soon as possible be
placed on the record, we cannot approve
of the order directing imposition of
exemplary cost on the Registrar (Listing)
as well as the other personnel of the
Registry.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sri Vinod Kumar V. D.N. Agarwal,HJS Registrar (L) High Court, Allahabad & another 431

5. It must be remembered that the
Registrar General, Registrar (Listing) etc.
of
this
Court
are
working
under
tremendous pressure in view of the heavy
volume of filing of cases in this Court.
The Hon'ble Judges as well as the officers
in the Registry are working under the
tremendous pressure of the workload, and
in this situation obviously sometimes
some mistake occurs and sometimes some
omission takes place.

6. In our opinion directing the
Registrar (Listing) of this Court to pay
exemplary cost of Rs.500/- was, with
great respect to the learned Single Judge,
unwarranted and uncalled for, particularly
when these adverse remarks was passed
without
giving
any
opportunity
of
hearing. The rules of natural justice
require that before adverse remarks made
the Court should give opportunity of
hearing to the person, but no such
opportunity appears to have been given to
the Registrar (Listing) before passing the
impugned order dated 18.5.2004.

7. In view of the above this appeal is
allowed. Impugned order dated 18.5.2004
is set-aside except the direction that the
earlier interim order shall continue.
However, although we have allowed this
appeal and set-aside the order dated
18.5.2004 we fully share the concern of
the
learned Single Judge
that
the
documents filed in this Court are often not
placed on record. The result is that very
often when cases are taken up for hearing
it is found that some affidavit or
application is not on record, although
learned counsel states that he had filed it
in the Registry. This is happening in may
cases, and a large number of cases have to
be adjourned because some important
document is not on record, although it
was filed, and this affects the smooth
functioning of the Court.

The Registrar General is therefore
directed to prepare a scheme so that in
future all documents filed in the Registry
are placed as soon as possible thereafter
on the record so that the functioning of
the Court may not suffer.

This direction however, will not be
treated as any adverse remark against the
Registrar
General
or
the
Registrar
(Listing) of this Court.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 14.5.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56783 of 2003

Kharaiti Lal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Subodh Kumar

Land
Acquisition
Act-
Ss.
4,6,17-
Acquisition of land for public purpose-
writ against- plea that no vesting since
possession
not
taken-
Held,
once
possession taken by Government on
7.8.2001, even if owner of land resumed
possession, such act can not effect the
consequences of vesting.

Once possession of the land was taken
by the Government even if thereafter the
owner of the land entered upon the land
and resumed possession such act does