Allowed

Smt. Nirmala Toppo (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Mar 2024WPC/541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of a forest right lease granted to a tribal petitioner. The High Court held that under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, decisions by the District Level Committee are final and binding, meaning the Committee lacked the power to review or cancel its own order. The impugned cancellation order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.01.2017 cancelling the forest right lease was set aside and the petition was allowed.

Smt. Nirmala Toppo (Dead) Through Lrs., Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

AFR

¶3

NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 541 of 2018

¶5

1. Smt. Nirmala Toppo died through Lrs.

¶6

1(a). Nikolas Toppo, S/o Late Anjelus Toppo, aged about 66 years,

¶7

1(b). Anand Toppo, s/o. Nikolas Toppo, aged about 27 years,

¶8

1(c). Punit Toppo, Nikolas Toppo, aged about 25 years,

¶9

All are R/o village- Kumdewa, Tahsil Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

1(d) Smt. Poonam Pratima Toppo, D/o Nikolas Toppo, w/o Anup Lakda, aged about- 38 years, r/o village Madaikona, Tahsil, Post Office and Police Station- Chainpur, District Gumla, Jharkhand.

¶11

----- Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2. The Collector/Chairman, District Level Right of Forestation Committee Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

5. Tahsildar, Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate

¶21

For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

14.03.2024

¶25

By way of this petition, the following relief(s) have been sought:-

¶26

-2-

¶27

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorary/mandamus or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 and order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P/1 & P/2), reinstating the lease/Van Adhikar Patta of the petitioners with suitable direction to protect her rights.

¶28

10.2 Command /direction may kindly be issued to call for the entire records pertaining to the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶29

10.3 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. ”

¶30

During the pendency of this petition, the sole petitioner (Smt. Nirmala Toppo) expired on 10.02.2021, and her legal representatives have been brought on record as the petitioners.

¶31

The facts of the present case are as follows:-

¶32

a. The original petitioner was a member of the aboriginal tribe and she was staying along with her family in a scheduled area at Village Kumdewa, Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja.

¶33

b. An application was moved by the original petitioner for the grant of ‘forest right lease’ concerning land bearing survey No. 233/1, admeasuring 2.558 hectares, situated at the said village on the ground that she remained in possession of the land for a considerable period, and a dwelling house was also constructed on some part of the land, which is being used for residential purposes by her and her family. The application of the petitioner was registered by the competent authority and after due scrutiny, the ‘forest right lease’ was granted on 15.01.2012, in her favour.

¶34

c. A complaint was made against the original petitioner to the effect that the aforesaid ‘forest right lease’ has been granted against the grazing land, which has been recorded as Chote Jhad Ka Jungle/grazing land in the revenue records.

¶35

-3-

¶36

d. An enquiry was conducted, and statements of the witnesses including the original petitioner were recorded by the concerned authority, thereafter, the Committee/concerned authority cancelled the said ‘forest right lease’ granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2017 issued by the District Level Forest Right Committee, (for short, the Committee), comprising of the Collector cum Chairperson of the District Level Forest Right Committee, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur and Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja Forest Division, whereby the ‘forest right lease’ (for short, the lease), granted in favour of the original petitioner, has been cancelled.

¶38

5. Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the original petitioner would submit that a lease was granted by the Committee. He would further argue that the lease was granted in favour of the original petitioner after; following due process of law as also with the consent of Gram Sabha of Panchayat Kumdewa, and consent was given by Gram Sabha for allotment of the land in favour of the original petitioner. He would further submit that according to Section 6 (6) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, (for short, the Act, 2006), any decision taken by the District Level Committee shall be final and binding, therefore, the Committee had no authority to review its own order. He would also submit that an aggrieved person has only remedy to approach this Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 476 .

¶39

-4-

¶40

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose and submit that though the lease was granted in favour of the original petitioner after scrutiny, but it was found that the leased land is recorded as Grazing land/Chote Jhad ka Jungle, and the Committee had no authority of law to grant such lease. He would further submit that after receipt of a complaint, the matter was inquired into, and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and the statements of the witnesses including the original petitioner were also recorded by the concerned authority. He argues that the authority/Committee who has the authority to grant a lease, has equal right to cancel, and only the mistake was rectified; thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶42

In the matter of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd (supra ) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para-57 as under:-

¶43

57.Ministry of Tribal Affairs has noticed several problems which are impeding the implementation of the Act in its letter and spirit. For proper and effective implementation of the Act, the Ministry has issued certain guidelines and communicated to all the States and UTs vide their letter dated 12.7.2012. The operative portion of the same reads as follows:

¶44

“GUIDELINES:

¶45

(i) Process of Recognition of Rights:

¶46

(a) The State Governments should ensure that on receipt of intimation from the Forest Rights Committee, the officials of the Forest and Revenue Departments remain present during the verification of the claims and the evidence on the site.

¶47

(b) In the event of modification or rejection of a claim by the Gram Sabha or by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee or the District Level Committee, the decision on the claim should be communicated to the claimant to enable the aggrieved person to

¶48

-5-

¶49

prefer a petition to the Sub Divisional Level Committee or the District Level Committee, as the case may be, within the sixty days period prescribed under the Act and no such petition should be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

¶50

(c) The Sub-Divisional Level Committee or the District Level Committee should, if deemed necessary, remand the claim to the Gram Sabha for reconsideration instead of rejecting or modifying the same, in case the resolution or the recommendation of the Gram Sabha is found to be incomplete or prima-facie requires additional examination.

¶51

(d) In cases where the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, recommending a claim, is upheld by Sub-Divisional Level committee, but the same is not approved by the District Level Committee, the District Level Committee should record the reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the Gram Sabha and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, in writing, and a copy of the order should be supplied to the claimant.

¶52

(e) On completion of the process of settlement of rights and issue of titles as specified in Annexures II, III & IV of the Rules, the Revenue / Forest Departments shall prepare a final map of the forest land so vested and the concerned authorities shall incorporate the forest rights so vested in the revenue and forest records, as the case may be, within the prescribed cycle of record updation.

¶53

(f) All decisions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee that involve modification or rejection of a Gram Sabha resolution/ recommendation should be in the form of speaking orders.

¶54

(g) The Sub-Divisional Level Committee or the District Level committee should not reject any claim accompanied by any two forms of evidences, specified in Rule 13, and recommended by the Gram Sabha, without giving reasons in writing and should not insist upon any particular form of evidence for consideration of a claim. Fine receipts, encroacher lists, primary offence reports, forest settlement reports, and similar documentation rooted in prior official exercises, or the lack -thereof, would not be the sole basis for rejection of any claim.

¶55

(h) Use of any technology, such as, satellite imagery, should be used to supplement evidences tendered by a claimant for consideration of the claim and not to replace other evidences submitted by him in support of his claim as the only form of evidence.

¶56

-6-

¶57

(i) The status of all the claims, namely, the total number of claims filed, the number of claims approved by the District Level Committee for title, the number of titles actually distributed, the number of claims rejected, etc. should be made available at the village and panchayat levels through appropriate forms of communications, including conventional methods, such as, display of notices, beat of drum etc.

¶58

(j) A question has been raised whether the four hectare limit specified in Section 4(6) of the Act, which provides for recognition of forest rights in respect of the land mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, applies to other forest rights mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. It is clarified that the four hectare limit specified in Section 4(6) applies to rights under section 3(1)(a) of the Act only and not to any other right under section 3(1), such as conversion of pattas or leases, conversion of forest villages into revenue villages etc.

¶59

(ii) Minor Forest Produce:

¶60

(a) The State Government should ensure that the forest rights relating to MFPs under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act are recognized in respect of all MFPs, as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, in all forest areas, and state policies are brought in alignment with the provisions of the Act. Section 2(i) of the Act defines the term “minor forest produce” to include "all non-timber produce of plant origin, including bamboo, brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers, and the like".

¶61

(b) The monopoly of the Forest Corporations in the trade of MFP in many States, especially in case of high value MFP, such as, tendu patta, is against the spirit of the Act and should henceforth be done away with.

¶62

(c) The forest right holders or their cooperatives/ federations should be allowed full freedom to sell such MFPs to anyone or to undertake individual or collective processing, value addition, marketing, for livelihood within and outside forest area by using locally appropriate means of transport.

¶63

(d) The State Governments should exempt movement of all MFPs from the purview of the transit rules of the State Government and, for this purpose, the transit rules be amended suitably. Even a transit permit from Gram Sabha should not be required. Imposition of any fee/charges/royalties on the processing, value addition, marketing of MFP collected individually or collectively by the cooperatives/ federations of the rights holders would also be ultra vires of the Act.

¶64

-7-

¶65

(e) The State Governments need to play the facilitating role in not only transferring unhindered absolute rights over MFP to forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers but also in getting them remunerative prices for the MFP, collected and processed by them.

¶66

(iii) Community Rights:

¶67

(a) The District Level Committee should ensure that the records of prior recorded nistari or other traditional community rights (such as Khatian part II in Jharkhand, and traditional forest produce rights in Himachal and Uttarakhand) are provided to Gram Sabhas, and if claims are filed for recognition of such age-old usufructory rights, such claims are not rejected except for valid reasons, to be recorded in writing, for denial of such recorded rights;

¶68

(b) The District Level Committee should also facilitate the filing of claims by pastoralists before the concerned Gram Sabha (s) since they would be a floating population for the Gram Sabha(s) of the area used traditionally.

¶69

(c) In view of the differential vulnerability of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PTGs) amongst the forest dwellers, District Level Committee should play a pro-active role in ensuring that all PTGs receive habitat rights in consultation with the concerned PTGs’ traditional institutions and their claims for habitat rights are filed before the concerned Gram Sabhas.

¶70

(d) The forest villages are very old entities, at times of preindependent era, duly existing in the forest records. The establishment of these villages was in fact encouraged by the forest authorities in the pre-independent era for availability of labour within the forest areas. The well defined record of each forest village, including the area, number of inhabitants, etc. exists with the State Forest Departments. There are also unrecorded settlements and old habitations that are not in any Government record. Section 3(1)(h) of the Act recognizes the right of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers relating to settlement and conversion on forest villages, old habitation, un-surveyed villages and other villages and forests, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages. The conversion of all forest villages into revenue villages and recognition of the forest rights of the inhabitants thereof should actually have been completed immediately on enactment of the Act. The State Governments may, therefore, convert all such erstwhile forest villages, unrecorded settlements and old habitations into revenue villages with a sense of urgency in a time bound manner. The conversion would include the actual land-use of the village in its entirety, including lands required for current or

¶71

-8-

¶72

future community uses, like, schools, health facilities, public spaces etc. Records of the forest villages maintained by the Forest Department may thereafter be suitably updated on recognition of this right.

¶73

(iv) Community Forest Resource Rights:

¶74

(a) The State Government should ensure that the forest rights under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act relating to protection, regeneration or conservation or management of any community forest resource, which forest dwellers might have traditionally been protecting and conserving for sustainable use, are recognized in all villages and the titles are issued as soon as the prescribed Forms for claiming Rights to Community Forest Resource and the Form of Title for Community Forest Resources are incorporated in the Rules. Any restriction, such as, time limit, on use of community forest resources other than what is traditionally imposed would be against the spirit of the Act.

¶75

(b) In case no community forest resource rights are recognized in a village, the reasons for the same should be recorded. Reference can be made to existing records of community and joint forest management, van panchayats, etc. for this purpose.

¶76

(c) The Gram Sabha would initially demarcate the boundaries of the community forest resource as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act for the purposes of filing claims for recognition of forest right under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act.

¶77

(d) The Committees constituted under Rule 4(e) of the Forest Rights Rules, 2008 would work under the control of Gram Sabha. The State Agencies should facilitate this process.

¶78

(e) Consequent upon the recognition of forest right in Section 3(i) of the Act to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource, the powers of the Gram Sabha would be in consonance with the duties as defined in Section 5(d), wherein the Gram Sabha is empowered to regulate access to community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the bio- diversity. Any activity that prejudicially affects the wild- life, forest and bio-diversity in forest area would be dealt with under the provisions of the relevant Acts.

¶79

(v) Protection Against Eviction, Diversion of Forest Lands and Forced Relocation :

¶80

(a) Section 4(5) of the Act is very specific and provides that no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other

¶81

-9-

¶82

traditional forest dwellers shall be evicted or removed from the forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. This clause is of an absolute nature and excludes all possibilities of eviction of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers without settlement of their forest rights as this Section opens with the words “Save as otherwise provided”. The rationale behind this protective clause against eviction is to ensure that in no case a forest dweller should be evicted without recognition of his rights as the same entitles him to a due compensation in case of eventuality of displacement in cases, where even after recognition of rights, a forest area is to be declared as inviolate for wildlife conservation or diverted for any other purpose. In any case, Section 4(1) has the effect of recognizing and vesting forest rights in eligible forest dwellers. Therefore, no eviction should take place till the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights under the Act is complete.

¶83

(b) The Ministry of Environment & Forests, vide their letter No.119/1998-FC(pt.) dated 30.07.2009, as modified by their subsequent letter of the same number dated 03.08.2009, has issued directions, requiring the State/ UT Governments to enclose certain evidences relating to completion of the process of settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, while formulating unconditional proposals for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The State Government should ensure that all diversions of forest land for non- forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 take place in compliance with the instructions contained in the Ministry of Environment & Forest’s letter dated 30.07.2009, as modified on 03.08.2009.

¶84

(c) There may be some cases of major diversions of forest land for non-forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 after the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 but before the issue of Ministry of Environment & Forests’ letter dated 30.07.2009, referred to above. In case, any evictions of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have taken place without settlement of their rights due to such major diversions of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the District Level Committees may be advised to bring such cases of evictions, if any, to the notice of the State Level Monitoring Committee for appropriate action against violation of the provisions contained in Section 4(5) of the Act.

¶85

(d) The Act envisages the recognition and vesting of forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over all forest lands, including National Parks and

¶86

-10-

¶87

Sanctuaries. Under Section 2(b) of the Act, the Ministry of Environment & Forests is responsible for determination and notification of critical wildlife habitats in the National Parks and Sanctuaries for the purpose of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation, as per the procedure laid down. In fact, the rights of the forest dwellers residing in the National Parks and Sanctuaries are required to be recognized without waiting of notification of critical wildlife habitats in these areas. Further, Section 4(2) of the Act provides for certain safeguards for protection of the forest rights of the forest rights holders recognized under the Act in the critical wildlife habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries, when their rights are either to be modified or resettled for the purposes of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation. No exercise for modification of the rights of the forest dwellers or their resettlement from the National Parks and Sanctuaries can be undertaken, unless their rights have been recognized and vested under the Act. In view of the provisions of Section 4(5) of the Act, no eviction and resettlement is permissible from the National Parks and sanctuaries till all the formalities relating to recognition and verification of their claims are completed. The State/ UT Governments may, therefore, ensure that the rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, residing in National Parks and Sanctuaries are recognized first before any exercise for modification of their rights or their resettlement, if necessary, is undertaken and no member of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller is evicted from such areas without the settlement of their rights and completion of all other actions required under section 4 (2) of the Act.

¶88

(e) The State Level Monitoring Committee should monitor compliance of the provisions of Section 3(1)(m) of the Act, which recognizes the right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or displaced from forest land without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation, and also of the provisions of Section 4(8) of the Act, which recognizes their right to land when they are displaced from their dwelling and cultivation without land compensation due to State development interventions.

¶89

(vi) Awareness-Raising, Monitoring and Grievance Redressal:

¶90

(a) Each State should prepare suitable communication and training material in local language for effective implementation of the Act.

¶91

(b) The State Nodal Agency should ensure that the Sub Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee make district-

¶92

-11-

¶93

wise plans for trainings of revenue, forest and tribal welfare departments' field staff, officials, Forest Rights Committees and Panchayat representatives. Public meetings for awareness generation in those villages where process of recognition is not complete need to be held.

¶94

(c) In order to generate awareness about the various provisions of the Act and the Rules, especially the process of filing petitions, the State Government should organize public hearings on local bazaar days or at other appropriate locations on a quarterly basis till the process of recognition is complete. It will be helpful if some members of Sub Divisional Level Committee are present in the public hearings. The Gram Sabhas also need to be actively involved in the task of awareness raising.

¶95

(d) If any forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe in case of a dispute relating to a resolution of a Gram Sabha or Gram Sabha through a resolution against any higher authority or Committee or officer or member of such authority or Committee gives a notice as per Section 8 of the Act regarding contravention of any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder concerning recognition of forest rights to the State Level Monitoring Committees, the State Level Monitoring Committee should hold an inquiry on the basis of the said notice within sixty days from the receipt of the notice and take action, if any, that is required.”

¶96

In the above-cited judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for recommendation of various rights according to the communication issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs dated 12.07.2012. It appears that in the present case, the forest right was granted in favour of the petitioner according to the scheme framed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the provisions of the Act, 2006. In the present case, the Gram Sabha of village Kumveda had passed a resolution for allotment of forest land in favour of the petitioner and pursuant to recommendation/resolution of the Gram Sabha, ‘forest right lease’ was granted in favour of the original petitioner by the Committee.

¶97

Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, enable every Gram Sabha to safeguard and preserve the

¶98

-12-

¶99

traditions, customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and community mode of dispute resolution. In the present case, the Gram Sabha of the Village Kumveda had given its consent for allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner, consequently, the lease was granted in favour of the original petitioner by the Committee.

¶100

11.From a perusal of the documents placed on the record, it is apparent that the lease was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2012 by the Committee headed by the Collector. Thereafter, a complaint was made before the Collector on 04.07.2015 and the matter was inquired into. It was found that the land allotted to the original petitioner is recorded as Grazing land (Chote Jhad Ka Jungle) in the revenue records, and the Committee has no authority of law to grant such lease in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the Committee took the decision to cancel the lease of the original petitioner.

¶101

Section 4(5) of the Act, 2006 says as under:-

¶102

“4. Recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.–

¶103

(5) Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

¶104

From bare reading of Section 4(5) of the Act, 2006, it is apparent that no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. In the present case, after recognition and verification procedure, the ‘forest right lease’ was granted in favour of the original petitioner, therefore, the petitioner can not be removed without following due process of law.

¶105

-13-

¶106

14. Section 6(6) of the Act, 2006 says as under:-

¶107

“ 6. Authorities to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and procedure thereof .-

¶108

(6) The decision of the District Level Committee on the record of forest rights shall be final and binding.”

¶109

From a bare reading of Section 6 (6) of the Act, 2006, it is quite vivid that any decision taken by the Committee while granting a ‘forest right lease’ shall be final and binding, meaning thereby, any decision taken by the Committee cannot be reviewed or modified by the same Committee. In the entire Act, there is no provision for appeal, review, revision, etc; and there is no statutory authority to exercise such power. As the order/decision taken by the District Level Committee becomes final and binding, in such a situation, the recourse available to the aggrieved party would be to approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, but in the instant case, no such steps have been taken either by the Committee or the complainant, and the Committee reviewed its own order which is not permissible under the law. In the opinion of this Court, there was no such power vested with the Committee, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Committee cancelling the ‘forest right lease’ of the original petitioner is hereby set aside. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed . No costs.

¶110

However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take

¶111

recourse to law. Sd/-

¶112

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶113

Nadim

Smt. Nirmala Toppo (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nirmala Toppo (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Shikha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Tupatkar Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Radhelal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juhi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh