Shri Ramchandra Jee Swami Jaitu Sao Math Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:45250-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FAM No. 02 of 2021

¶6

Judgment Reserved on : 04/10/2024 Judgment Delivered on : 20/11/2024

¶7

Shri Ramchandra Jee Swami Jaitu Sao Math, a Public Trust, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), through its Secretary Mr. Mahendra Kumar Agrawal.

¶8

….... Appellant/

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur as an Officer for Land Acquisition.

¶11

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

The Executive Officer, C.G. Housing Board, Division No.-2, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

..... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Nos. 1 & 2/State For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate No.3.

¶15

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶16

(C A V Judgment)

¶17

Per Rajani Dubey, J

¶18

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

¶19

2

¶20

30.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the 4^th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Land Acquisition Case No.92/2015, whereby the learned trial Court denied the claim of the appellant for interest on the land acquisition compensation amount for intervening period from the date of notification/acquisition of land of appellant till actual date of credit of the same in the account of the appellant.

¶21

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the appellant, are that the Appellant was having ownership over a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 509/1, P.H.No. 119, area 13.055 situated at village Sejbahar, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (for short ‘the land in question’), which was intended to be acquired by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the Respondent No. 3 to develop a housing project. The Respondent No. 3 gave a proposal vide letter No. 794 dated 25.02.2010 to the Respondent No.1 to acquire the land in question and accordingly a land acquisition process was started by the Respondents after publication of notification dated 18.04.2011 by the Government of Chhattisgarh, which was also published in two Hindi Daily Newspapers of Raipur locality. This notification was also published in official gazette of the State on 03.06.2011, hence, it was the final date of publication. The Respondent No. 2, vide their notice dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure A/3), communicated the Appellant that they are acquiring the land in question for Respondent No. 3 to develop a housing project on the same. After the publication, the process of acquisition of land in

¶22

3

¶23

question was initiated by inviting objections from public of that area as well as owners of the land in question and after hearing all the parties, an award (Annexure A/4) was passed by the Respondent No. 1 on 22.05.2012 with regard to above mentioned land in question by awarding a compensation of Rs. 12,15,78,090/- in favour of the Appellant. According to the appellant, in compliance of the above award, the Respondent No. 3 deposited the compensation with Respondent No. 1 on various dates viz. Rs.1,68,67,060/- on 30.03.11 and Rs. 10,47,44,030/- on 30.03.2013. This amount was kept by the Respondent No. 1 in their possession and only Rs. 11,05,25,536.00 against total amount of award Rs.12,15,78,090/- was deposited in a nationalized Bank in a FDR by ensuring their full control over the said FDR. When the Appellant requested for payment of compensation amount to them, the Respondent No. 1 informed that some objections have been raised by some persons during the process of acquisition and, also that, thereafter they have filed Appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, so award amount would be kept by them till final disposal of the case by the learned trial Court.

¶24

According to the appellant, while retaining the award amount with them, the Respondent No. 1 ignored this fact that the land in question belongs to the Appellant only and also that based on this ownership title, the award has been passed in their favour and that there was no stay of any Court in paying award amount to the Appellant. It is matter of fact from the title deed and

¶25

4

¶26

records of the revenue, the Appellant was having clear title over the land in question and also that Respondent No. 3 has paid award amount for the Appellant only. Even after this unambiguous fact and circumstance, the Respondent No. 1 kept the award amount in their own account and control by denying legitimate right of the Appellant to get the award money in their own account. Even after various requests by the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 did not allow any credit of the compensation / award amount to them till 08.07.2015 and on this date this award amount was given without adding / applying / levying any interest on the same, which is contradictory to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶27

Further case is that the Respondent No. 2, vide their communication dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure A/2), has communicated the Appellant that compensation amount Rs. 11,05,25,636.00 of the said land was kept by them in a Fixed deposit. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a reference case no. 92/2015 on 03.08.2015 before the learned Court of the 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur against the award dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 1. praying for interest of intervening period from the date of notification/ possession to the date on which award amount was paid to the Appellant. The learned trial Court passed the order on 30.11.2019 (Annexure A/1) partially allowing the application of the Appellant by enhancing the award amount by Rs.1,10,52,554.00 over and above the award amount of Rs.11,05,25,536.00 but denied the

¶28

5

¶29

prayer of interest on the award amount. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition being WPC No.2532 of 2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2020 (Annexure A/5) by this Hon'ble Court with liberty liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under the law. Hence, this appeal by the appellant

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not allow the reference application of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to interest payable on compensation amount of acquisition of land in question and it has misconstrued provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court ignored the fact that compensation amount was not credited in the Court but was kept by the respondent No.1 in their own possession, for which the appellant is entitled for interest thereon. Further, the learned trial Court wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned trial Court did not properly evaluate fact that the awarded compensation amount was kept by the respondent No.1 and 2 in their own account till 08.07.2015 instead of paying the same to the appellant. The appellant is entitled to get the interest on original amount of Rs.11,05,25,636.00 under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 on the award amount.

¶31

Learned counsel also submits that after passing the award and acquiring the land in question, no award amount was paid to the appellant by the respondents till 08.07.2015 and the same was

¶32

6

¶33

paid on this date without applying any interest thereon, which is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had kept the compensation amount of Rs.11,05,25,536/- from 02.04.2013 and 30.03.2013 (paid by respondent No.3 in two installments) till 08.07.2015 in Fixed Deposit in Oriental Bank of Commerce and interest earned on the same was retained by them, as when this compensation amount was paid to the appellant on 08.07.2015, interest earned on the said amount was kept by them in their account. The appellant has exclusive right on amount of compensation and interest thereon from the date of notification/possession to the date of actual credit of the amount in the account of the appellant. Thus, the impugned order may be modified by awarding the interest on award amount of Rs.11,05,25,536/- for the intervening period during which the respondents had kept the award amount in their account and paid the appellant after 38 months, in the interest of justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 588 and Chanabasappa V. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2020) 5 SCR 24.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State and learned counsel for respondent No.3 strongly opposed the prayer of the appellant and submit that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the claim of the appellant with regard to interest. It has passed the

¶35

7

¶36

impugned order strictly in accordance with provision of Land Acquisition Act. Learned State counsel further submits that there is dispute with respect to the ownership of the property in question of which the acquisition has been done and, therefore, the awarded amount was not disbursed to the appellant and in respect to the awarded amount in furtherance to the letter dated 08.07.2015 of the Joint Collector on behalf of the Collector, a fixed deposit was done in the joint name of the Collector and the appellant Trust of an amount of Rs.11,05,25,536/- vide memo dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure R-1) and in respect of the title of the acquired land dispute is pending between the parties before the learned Civil Court and petition being WPC No.371/2022 [Vidya Shankar Shukla and Another V. State of Chhattisgarh], is still pending adjudication before this Court. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for any relief and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

¶38

It is an admitted position in this case that upon the requisition dated 25.02.2010 made by the Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division No.2, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for construction of Housing Board Colony, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, had initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of land of the Trust situated upon Khasra No.509/1 admeasuring 13.055 hectare at village Sejbahar, Patwari Halka No.119, Revenue Circle, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, and registered a

¶39

8

¶40

Land Acquisition Case No.10/A/82 year 2010-11 and after publication of notification under Section 4(1) on 18.4.2011, which was also published in the two local newspaper on 25.05.2011 and thereafter, the same was published in the gazette notification on 03.06.2011. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published on 05.08.2011 and the same was also duly published in two local newspaper Navbharat on 12.08.2011 and Patrika dated 12.08.2011, and thereafter, the final publication was done in the gazette notification on 23.09.2011 & after deciding the objections made by the objectors, the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 22.05.2012 wherein, an amount of Rs.11,04,45,300/- +80,236/- and 10% processing fees total amount of Rs.12,15,75,089/- was awarded. It is also not disputed that the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 22.05.2012, made a reference before the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and thereafter, the matter was referred to the learned trial Court. The learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Raipur, after hearing the parties and perusing the documents placed on record, passed an order dated 30.11.2019 in Land Acquisition Case No.92/2015, whereby it was ordered that out of the awarded amount of Rs.12,15,78,090/-, an amount of Rs.11,05,25,536/- was deposited in the separate account by the Land Acquisition Officer and for the difference amount of Rs.1,10,52,554/- the appellant can take recourse in accordance with law.

¶41

9

¶42

Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2019, the respondent/state had preferred a review application under order 47 rule 1 of the code of civil procedure for review of the said order on the ground that for 10% processing amount which has been ordered to the appellant that the processing amount for initiating the land acquisition proceeding by the land acquisition officer and for which the appellant/land oustees is not entitled and further the land oustees is only entitled for the compensation which has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in lieu of his land and and in the referencem the learned Court has committed error of law in entitling the petitioner for processing fees of Rs.1,10,52,545/- and the learned reviewing Court allowed the review petition on 16.03.2021 and the learned Court deleted the paragraphs 30 and 31 of the order dated 30.11.2019 observing that the appellant is only entitled for the awarded amount of Rs.11,05,25,536/- in lieu of acquisition of 13.055 hectares.

¶43

For ready reference, paragraphs 30 and 31 of the order dated 30.11.019 is reproduced herein as under :-

¶44

“(30) भूअ्ቌ�नअधि�कारीकेअवा्ቑ�केअवलोकनसेयहदቦኌ�तहै किकउनके्ቛ ाराकिन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌाराशि� 11,05,25,536/- रूपएपर 10 धित�तकी्ቚ ोत्साहनराशि�किदये्ቌ ानेकाभीउ्ቤेखकिकयाहै।्ቚ इसकिन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌाराशि� 11,05,25,536/- रूपएमें10 ्ቚधित�त की ाने पर यह अधितरिर्ሹ्ቚ ोत्साहन राशि�्ቌ ोड़े्ቌ राशि� 12,15,78,090/- रूपएहोताहै।अशिभलेखसेयहभीदቦኌ�तहैकिक उ्ሹ संपू्ቓ�राशि�अनावेदकहाउिሺसगबो्ቑ�के्ቛ ारा्ቌ माकी्ቌ ाचुकी है, परंतु 12,15,78,090/- रूपएकेकुल्ቚ धितकरमेंसेमा्ቔ 11,05,25,536/- रूपएकोहीपृथकखातेमें्ቌ माकिकये्ቌ ानेके संबं�मेंकोईस्प्ቖ आदे�अशिभलेखमेंदቦኌ�तनहींहै।अतःउ्ሹ अंतरकीराशि� 1,10,52,554/- रूपएकीराशि�भू-अ्ቌ�नअधि�कारी

¶45

10

¶46

से्ቚ ा्቎ करनेकाआवेदकअधि�कारीहै।

¶47

(31) उपरो्ሹ साቌኚयकिववेचनाउपरांतयहकिनष्क्ቧ�तःकहा्ቌ ासकता हैकिक, आवेदकट्रस्टकीओरसे, किन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌाराशि�परअवा्ቑ� किदनांक 22.05.2012 सेकिदनांक 03.07.2015 तककीअवधि�हेतु 12 धित�तकीदरसेब्या्ቌ किदलाये्ቌ ानेकाकिनवेदनअस्वीकार्ቚ किकया्ቌ ाताहै।भूअ्ቌ�नअधि�कारीके्ቛ ाराकुलकिन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌा राशि� 12,15,78,090/- रूपएमेंसेमा्ቔ 11,05,25,536/- रूपए कोहीपृथकखातेमें्ቌ माकिकयागयाहै, अतःअंतरकीराशि� 1,10,52,554/- रूपएकीराशि�भू-अ्ቌ�नअधि�कारीसे्ቚ ा्቎ किकये ानेहेतुआवेदक्ቌ , किवधि�अनुसारकाय�वाहीकरसकताहै।चूंकिक अनावेदकछ.ग. गृ.किन.मं. के्ቛ ाराभूकिमकाकब ् ा्ቚ ा्቎ करनेकेपूव�ही संपू्ቓ�राशि�अदाकरदीगयाहै, इसलिलयेअनावेदकछ.ग. गृ.किन.मं. कोअन्यकिकसीभी्ቚ कारकीराशि�अदायगीकेदाधियत्वसेउन्मु्ሹ किकया्ቌ ाताहै।"

¶48

And when the State/respondent filed a review application, the learned District Judge in review order dated 16.03.2021 observed in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 as under :-

¶49

“(09) न्यायालयकेसम्ቌ छ.ग. �ासन्ቛ ाराकलेक्टररायपुरका उधिचत्ቚ धितकिनधि�त्व नहीं होने से आलोच्य आदे� किदनांक 30.11.2019 छ.ग. पारिरतकिकये्ቌ ानेकेपूव�न्यायालयकेसम्ቌ �ासनकीअधि�सूचना "छ.ग. �ासनरा्ቌस्वएवंआपदा्ቚ बं�न किवभाग, मं्ቔालय, दाउकल्या्ቓ िሺसहभवनरायपुरकीअधि�सूचना कमांकएफ-7-71/सात-3/2010रायपुरकिदनांक 09 अगस्त, 2010" स्तुतनहींहुआथा।इसअधि�सूचनाकेअवलोकनसेयहस्प्ቖ ्ቚहै किक, भूअ्ቌ�नअधि�कारीके्ቛ ारामुआव्ቌाराशि�काकिन�ा�र्ቓ किकये ानेकेप्ቐात्किन�ा�रिरत्ቚ ोत्साहनराशि��ासनकोदेयहोताहै।इस्ቌ अधि�सूचनाकेअवलोकनसेयह्ቚ थमदृष ् ादቦኌ�तहैकिकन्यायालय के्ቛ ारा्ቚ ोत्साहनराशि� 1,10,52,554/- रूपएअनावेदक्ቅ मांक-1 (मूल्ቚ कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी्ቌै तूसावमठ) को्ቚ ा्቎ होने काअधि�कारीहोनेका्ቌ ोकिनष्क्ቧ�आलोच्यआदे�कीकंधि्ቑका 30 एवं31 मेंकिदयागयाहै, वहसं�ोधि�तकिकये्ቌ ानेयोग्यहै।

¶50

(10) परिर्ቓामतःछ.ग. �ासनकीओरसे्ቚ स्तुतयहपुनብኌवलोकन आवेदनस्वीकारकरतेहुएआलोच्यआदे�किदनांक 30.11.2019 कीकंधि्ቑका 30 एवं31 किवलोकिपतकिकया्ቌ ाताहै। (11) अनावेदककमांक-1 (मूल्ቚ कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी

¶51

11

¶52

तूसावमठ्ቌै ) कीअቌኌ्ቌतभूकिमकुलरकबा 13.055 हे. केलिलए किन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌाराशि� 11,05,25,536/- रूपएकीराशि�उसेपूव� मेंही्ቚ दायकिकया्ቌ ाचुकाहैइसलिलयेअनावेदक्ቅ मांक-1 (मूल कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी्ቌै तूसावमठ्ቚ ) वत�मानमेंछ.ग. �ासन्ቛ ाराकलेक्टररायपुरअथवाछ.ग. गृहकिनमा�्ቓ मं्ቑलसेकोई भीराशि�्ቚ ा्቎ करनेकाअधि�कारीनहींहै।

¶53

(12) अनावेदककमांक-1 (मूल्ቚ कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी तूसावमठ्ቌै ) के्ቛ ारापुनብኌवलोकनआवेदनकीसुनवाईकेदौरान उसेकिन�ा�रिरतमुआव्ቌाराशि�परअवा्ቑ�किदनांक 22.05.2012 से 03.7.2015 तककीअवधि�हेतु 12 धित�तकीदरसेब्या्ቌ्ቚ किदलाये्ቌ ानेकाभीकिनवेदनकिकयागयाहै, परंतुअनावेदककमांक-1 (मूल्ቚ कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी्ቌै तूसावमठ) केइसमांग काकिनराकर्ቓ आलोच्यआदे�किदनांक 30.11.2019 कीकंधि्ቑका 28 मेंपूव�मेंहीकिकया्ቌ ाचुकाहैइसलिलयेअनावेदककमांक-1 (मूल कर्ቓ केआवेदकरामचन ् स्वामी्ቌै तूसावमठ्ቚ ) काकिनवेदन अस्वीकारकिकया्ቌ ाताहै।"

¶54

While dealing with the issue of compensation in land acquisition proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir & Others V. Union of India & Another reported in (2017) 11 SCR 553 held in para 10 as under :-

¶55

“11. This Court in Hissar Improvement Trust V. Rukmani Devi AIR 1990 SC 2033 has considered the purport of Sections 31 and 34 and laid down that in case the amount is not deposited in the court as per the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, interest is liable to be paid as provided in Section 34. However, it is clear that due to non-deposit of the amount under Section 31, acquisition would not lapse under the Act. This Court has laid down thus :

¶56

“5. It cannot be gainsaid that interest is due and payable to the landowner in the event of the

¶57

12

¶58

compensation not being paid or deposited in time in court. Before taking possession of the land, the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded, as stated in Section 31, failing which he is liable to pay interest as provided in Section 34.

¶59

……….

¶60

We make it clear that insofar as the landowner is concerned, his right to be compensated is enforceable against the State. It is the liability of the Collector in terms of the relevant provisions to pay the amount awarded, together with interest in the event of the amount not being paid in time. The liability of the appellant-Trust arising under its agreement with the Government for payment in respect of the property acquired is a matter on which we express no view.”

¶61

Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chanabasappa Vs. Karnataka neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2020) 5 S.C.R. 24 held in paras 6, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-

¶62

“6. In Lila Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2004) 9 SCC 337, this court held that interest under section 34 or section 28 can start only from the date the possession is taken. Unless there is a case of urgency under section 17(1) of the Act where possession has been taken, or the acquisition process is initiated, in such cases, compensation would be payable by virtue of provisions of section 17 of the Act. This Court observed:

¶63

"19. Even though the authority in Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Lid (1991) 1 SCC 262 appears to support the claimants, it is to be seen that apart from mentioning Sections 28

¶64

13

¶65

and 34, no reasons have been given to justify the award of interest from a date prior to commencement of acquisition proceedings. A plain reading of Section 34 shows that interest is payable only if the compensation, which is payable, is not paid or deposited before taking possession. The question of payment or deposit of compensation will not arise if there is no acquisition proceeding. In the case where possession is taken prior to acquisition proceedings, a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest. But such a claim would not be either under Section 34 or Section 28. In our view, interest under these sections can only start running from the date the compensation is payable. Normally this would be from the date of the award. Of course, there may be cases under Section 17, whereby invoking urgency clause possession has been taken before the acquisition proceedings are initiated. In such cases, compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act, would be payable by virtue of the provisions of Section 17. As in cases under Section 17, compensation is payable; interest may run from the date possession was taken. However, this case does not fall into this category."

In In the present matter, we are concerned with

¶73

14

¶74

the question of interest to be awarded under section 34. Section 34 of the Act is extracted hereunder:

¶75

"34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:

¶76

[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]"

¶77

Under section 34, nine percent interest is payable for the first year from the date of taking possession, and in case it is not paid within one year from the date of possession, the interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum is payable.

¶78

In the present matter, interest has been awarded from the date of the award under section 34, not from the date of notification under section 4. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was not claimed before the reference court that possession was deprived of in the year 1991. Compensation / Damages were not claimed from the year 1991 and the factum of submergence has been disputed.”

¶79

15

¶80

In the light of above, in the present case also, it is apparent that the notification was published in the gazette notification on 23.09.2011 and award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been published on 22.05.2012 & it is an admitted position that the payment was made on 03.07.2015. The respondent/State also filed a copy of letter dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure R/1) of Collector, Raipur, which shows that an amount was deposited in fixed deposit in the name of Trust and Collector, Raipur.

¶81

Thus, considering the facts situation of the case and in the light of guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, this appeal is allowed and the respondent/State is directed to calculate the interest as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award till its realization i.e. 03.07.2015. The Collector, Raipur (C.G.) shall determine the aforesaid aspect within four months from the date of order of this Court.

¶82

Sd/Sd/-

¶83

(Rajani Dubey) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶84

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2024.11.21 14:47:59 +0530

Shri Ramchandra Jee Swami Jaitu Sao Math v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramchandra Jee Swami Jaitu Sao Math v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunwar Sai Pahadi Korwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Biharilal @ Jwala Prasad Vs Smt. Kamla Devi

Surendra Kumar Swarnkar Vs Smt. Sudha Devi Swarnkar

Smt. Urmila Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs- Vs Deleted (Basanta Bai)

Tajuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidhyut Vitaran Company Vs State of Chhattisgarh