JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. After having heard the matter on 15th September, 2017, we had passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Prima-facie we find the third respondent has virtually committed contempt of the judgment and order dated 01.09.2016. However, Sri Chandra Agarwal prays for three days' time to seek instructions and inform the Court about the correct status of the procedure adopted for any such recovery after the judgment dated 01.09.2016. Let the instructions be completed by Monday. Put up on Monday (18.09.2017)." 3. We have also perused the judgment delivered on 1st September, 2016 in this matter, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that there was a miscommunication with regard to the said judgment as a result whereof recovery proceedings have been again pressed into service against the petitioner and in order to rectify the same the Executive Engineer has issued a letter on 16th September, 2017. A photo state copy whereof has been placed before the Court whereby a request has been made to the Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue, Hapur to withdraw the recovery proceedings. 5. A photo state copy whereof has been placed before the Court whereby a request has been made to the Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue, Hapur to withdraw the recovery proceedings. 5. In order to put the record straight, we hereby quote the letter issued by the Executive Engineer in this order:- i=kad 2402 foŒfoŒ[kaŒ@x<+ fnukad % 16-09-2017 fo"k;%& Jh vkse Ádk'k iq= Jh ckydjke fuoklh xzke f[kyokbZ MkŒ [kkl rglhy x<+eqDrs'oj ftyk&gkiqM+ dh /kkjk&5 okil djus ds lEcU/k esaA vij ftykf/kdkjh for ,oe~ jktLo] gkiqM+A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k; vkidk lknj voxr djkuk gS fd Jh vkse Ádk'k iq= Jh ckydjke fuoklh xzke f[kyokbZ dks fn;s /kkjk&3 ds uksfVl 8815 fnukad 14-01-2016 ds lkis{k /kkjk 5 i= la[;k 169 o lkbZV ij QhM+ uaŒ 3000157 [k.M+ dk;kZy; ds i=kad 4133 fnukad 04-01-2017 :i;s 2]13]404-00 dh Ásf"kr dh xbZ FkhA mDr lEcU/k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ckn fjV lh uaŒ 14691 vkWQ 2016 ;ksftr gSA ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk fn;s vkns'k fnuakd 01-09-2016 ÁkIr u gksus ds vHkko esa Jh vkse Ádk'k dh xbZ FkhA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd vki mDr miHkksDrk Jh vkse Ádk'k iq= Jh ckydjke fuoklh xzke f[kyokbZ dh /kkjk&5 ds uksfVl i= uaŒ 169 o lkbZV ij QhM+ uaŒ 3000157 [k.M dk;kZy; ds i=kad 4133 fnukad 04-01-2017 :i;s 2]13]404-00 dks okfil djus dh d`ik djsaA layXu% ;FkkijksDr Áoh.k vxzoky vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fnukad % 16-09-2017 i=kad 2402 foŒfoŒ[kaŒ@x<+ Áfrfyfi mi&ftykf/kdkjh x<+eqDrs'oj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gSA Áoh.k vxzoky vf/k'kklh vfHk;UrkA 6. This being the position, the recovery certificate has been erroneously issued and which amounts to a clear harassment of the petitioner who had to undertake this compulsory litigation on account of the slackness on the part of the respondents in not having complied with the judgment and direction dated 1st September, 2016. 7. The neglect of the respondents calls for award of costs as well on the respondent-Electricity Department. The petitioner was given an unfair treatment and is accordingly entitled to costs in view of the ratio of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdev Singh v. State of U.P. 2014 (8) ADJ 700 , in paragraph nos. 19 to 23 extracted here-in-under: "19. Chapter XXI, Rule 11 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 prescribes the award of costs, which reads as under:- "11. 19 to 23 extracted here-in-under: "19. Chapter XXI, Rule 11 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 prescribes the award of costs, which reads as under:- "11. Costs.---In disposing of an application under this Chapter the Court may make such order as to costs as it may consider just. 1. Costs--Imposition of.--it is apparent that non-payment of cost is an exemption for which special reasons have to be given by the Court. The cost imposed should be in accordance with rules and if the proceedings are unnecessarily protracted or adjournments have been sought it is upon the discretion of the Judge to impose exemplary cost taking also into account the circumstances etc. for the purpose of adjournment. 2. Awarding of Costs.--Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 , has held that "so far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory inasmuch as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led the parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to the rule in force." 20. Apart from aforesaid statutory provision of the High Court Rules, the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2011)8 SCC 249 Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others held that the compensation must be awarded to persons who have been forced to enter into litigation. The principle flowing in Ramrameshwari Devi's case (supra) has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2012)6 SCC 430 A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshetirya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and others. 21. The proposition to impose cost is further given in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1999) 2 SCC 325 Marshal Sons and Co. (I) Limited v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Limited,, (2003) 8 SCC 648 South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P., 1984(supp.) SCC 505 Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue. 22. (I) Limited v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Limited,, (2003) 8 SCC 648 South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P., 1984(supp.) SCC 505 Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue. 22. In the case of Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan (2010)1 SCC 417 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been field. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court." Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in other judgments reported in (2013)7 SCC 416 National Textile Corporation (Uttar Pradesh) Limited v. Bhim Sen Gupta and others, (2012)3 SCC 1 Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others reiterated that the imposition of cost is must and the courts can award compensatory cost to the litigants who have approached to the court because of commission and omission of the State Government. In the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court awarded cost to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs to each which in totality is Rs. 5 crores. 23. In the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court awarded cost to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs to each which in totality is Rs. 5 crores. 23. In view of above and keeping in view the factual matrix on record, it appears that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for the second time in spite of the fact that while passing the impugned order, the government itself recorded a finding that the petitioner is in possession of the infrastructure regarding the agricultural industry which is running over the land in dispute which, according to the petitioner's counsel, is for more than 48 years. Once, the government itself found that no actual possession has been delivered in the manner provided by the Apex Court in the catena of judgments (supra), then it was not open for the government to reject the application and adjudicate the controversy in an indecisive manner with contradictory finding. It is a fit case where exemplary cost should be awarded." 8. The recovery citation issued by the State in the aforesaid background therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the recovery certificate dated 14th August, 2017 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- which we quantify in the circumstances of the present case to be justified payable by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner within fifteen days from today.