Attar Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors

RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -1-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH. oooooooooRA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM) oooooooooinoCWP-6171-1991 oooooooooooooooooooReservedoon:o31.08.2023 oooooooooPronouncedoon:o05.09.2023 ATTARoSINGHoANDoOTHERS ooooooooooooo o.....Applicants. Versus THEoSTATEoOFoHARYANAoANDoORS. oooooooooo....Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSURESHWARoTHAKUR oooooooo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEooKULDEEPoTIWARI Arguedoby:o Mr.oR.S.Mamli,oAdvocate forotheoapplicants. Mr.oAnkuroMittal,oAddl.oA.G.,oHaryanaowitho Mr.oSaurabhoMago,oDAG,oHaryana. Mr.oKamaloSharma,oAdvocateoando Mr.oRajaoSharma,oAdvocate fororespondent-HUDA.o **** oSURESHWARoTHAKURoo,oJo.

¶1TheopetitionersoearlieroinstitutedobeforeothisoCourtoCWP-6171-1991,owhereins,otheowritopetitionersocravedotheoindulgenceoofothis Courtotooaccordotoothemotheohereinafteroextractedorelief. "Civil o Writ o Petition o under o Articles o 226/227 o of o the Constitution o of o India o for o the o issuance o of o a o writ o of certiorarioquashingotheoimpugnedonotificationsoAnnexures P/1oandoP/2oissuedounderoSectiono4oando6oofotheoLand AcquisitionoAct,orespectively,oandoforotheoissuanceoofoany otherowrit,oorderoorodirectionowhichothisoHon'bleoCourt mayodeemofitoinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase." 2023.09.09 16:37 2. Throughoanoorderomadeoono07.11.2011,oupon,otheowrit RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -2-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo petitiono(supra),otheosameobecameodismissed.oTheorelevantoparagraphoof theoverdicto(supra)oisoextractedohereinafter. "5.oHavingoheardolearnedoStateocounsel,oweoareoofothe considered oviewo that ono ocaseo foro interferenceoin o the acquisitionoofotheorespondentsoisomadeooutobecauseothe CommissioneroappointedobyoaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourt videoorderodatedo28.09.1989oinoCWPoNo.o3163oofo1989o(R-1)ovisitedotheospotoandogaveoaofindingothatoalthoughofour roomsohaveobeenoconstructedoinotheofourocornersoofothe area.oTheoexemptionohasobeenorefusedobecauseoitowould haveohamperedotheoimplementationoofotheodevelopment plan.oMoreover,otheoinstantopetitionohasobeenofiledoafterothe announcement o of o the o award, o which o would o not o be maintainableoonoaccountoofowellosettledoprinciplesoofolaw laidodownobyoHon'bleotheoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof MunicipaloCorporationoofoGreateroBombayov.oIndustrial DevelopmentoandoInvestmentoCompanyo(P)oLtd.o(1996)o11 SCCo501;oMunicipaloCouncil,oAhmednagarov.oShahoHyder Beigo(2000)o2oSCCo48;oC.oPadmaov.oDeputyoSecretaryoto theoGovernmentoofoTamiloNaduo(1997)o2oSCCo627;oStar Wireo(India)oLtd.ov.oStateoofoHaryanao(1996)o11oSCCo698 andoM/s.oSwaikaoPropertiesoPvt.oLtd.ov.oStateoofoRajasthan JTo2008o(2)oSCo280."

¶3Beothatoasoitomay,otheopetitioners,onowohaveoinstitutedoRA-CW-202-2012oinotheowritopetitiono(supra)obeforeothisoCourt,owithoa prayerotherein,othatotheoaboveoorderoofodismissal,oasobecameomade,oon theowritopetitiono(supra),obeoreviewed.o FactualoBackground

¶4Theoreviewoapplicants-petitionersoalsoohadoearlierotoothe filingoofoCWP-6171-1991,othusohadoinstitutedoCWPoNo.o3165/1989 beforeothisoCourt,oandothereinsoaochallengeowasoalsoomadeotoothe 2023.09.09 16:37 notification(s)o(supra).oTheosaidowritopetitionowasodisposedoofothrough RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -3-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo anoorderomadeothereonsoono28.09.1989.oTheoorderoasomadeoonotheosaid writopetitionobecomesoextractedohereinafter.o "Parties o counsel o are o agreed o with o Mr. o A. o Banerjee, Financial o Commissioner o (Revenue) o and o Secretary o to Government,oHaryanaoshallobeoaskedotoogootootheospototo examineoasotoowhetherotheopremisesoofotheopetitioners deserve,oinotheoschemeoofothings,otoobeoexemptedofrom acquisitionoandothatowhateverobeohisodecisionowithoregard tooeachopetitioners,oitoshallobeotreatedoasofinal. Inotermsoofotheoagreementosooarrivedoat,oweodirect Mr.oA.oBanerjee,oFinancialoCommissionero(Revenue)oand Secretary o to o Government, o Haryana, o to o go o to o village Jhasra,owhichoisoproximateotootheospot,oonoOctobero26, 1989oreachingothereoato10oo'clockoandothenoroamoaboutoin theoareaotooseeowhatokindoofobuildingoandoplotsohaveobeen exemptedoandoasotoowhetherothereoisoanyoparityoofothose exemptedoplotsoandobuildingsowithothoseoofotheopetitioners, desceringoexemption.oAnyoofotheopetitioner,owhoomay chooseotoobeopresentoonotheospotoonotheoaforesaidodateoand time,omayobeosooandomadeohimosuchosuggestionsoasoare relevantoforotheopurpose.oItoisoexpectedoofoMr.oBanerjeeoto passoaoshortospeakingoorderoinorespectoofoeachocase.oOn thisounderstanding,oweodisposeoofothisowritopetition,oasoalso theoconnectedoones."

¶5TheoFinancialoCommissioneroandoSecretaryotooGovt.oof Haryana,oRevenueoDepartmentosubmittedohisoreporto(AnnexureoR-2), and, o thereins, o he o did o not o recommend o the o makings o of o apposite exemption(s)ovis-a-visotheoacquiredolands.oHowever,otheoaggrieved petitionersoconcerned,oratheroremainedodis-satisfiedowithotheoreportoof theoFinancialoCommissioneroconcerned,oandoproceededotoochallengeothe acquisition o notification(s), o through o theirs o instituting o another o writ petitionoCWP-4381-1990,obeforeothisoCourt,owhichowasoalsoodismissedKAVNEET SINGH RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -4-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo andoanoappealolaidothereagainstobeforeotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt,othus challengingotheosaidoorder,othroughoinstitutionoofoanoSLP,oalsoobecame dismissed.o

¶6Itoisoaptotoomentionohereothatosomeoofotheowritopetitioners, beingoaggrievedofromotheonotificationso(supra),ohenceofiledoCWPoNo. 3404oofo1989oandootheroconnectedowritopetitions,obeforeothisoCourt,obut throughoanoorderopassedothereonsobyothisoCourtoono29.06.2010,othe CWPso(supra)obecameodismissed.oTheoaggrievedotherefromopreferred SLPs, o before o the o Hon'ble o Apex o Court, o whereins, o there o occurs o a referenceotootheoearlieroorderomadeobyothisoCourtoono28.09.1989,oorder whereof,ohasoalreadyobeenoextractedoabove,owhereins,otheocounselsofor theolitigantsoconcerned,oevincedotheiroadoidemotootheoappointmentoof Mr.A.Banerjee,oFinancialoCommissionero(Revenue)oandoSecretaryoto Govt. o Haryana, o for o the o makings o of o spot o inspection o of o the o sites concerned,oandotooreportowhetherothereoisoanyoparityointer-seothose exemptedoplotsoandobuildings,othusowithotheopetitionersohenceofor therebyotheopetitionersobeingoalsooassignedotheobenefitoofoexemptions. Visiblyothereins,otheorelevantoconstruction(s)oratherobecameopronounced toobeonotoamenableoforobecomingoreleasedofromoacquisition.oo

¶7SinceotheoaboveoSLPobecameodismissedobyotheoHon'ble ApexoCourt,otherebyoalso otheoaboveoextractedoorders,oasobecame renderedobyothisoCourtoinoCWP-3165-1989oandoinoCWP-3404-1989, and, o other o connected o writ o petitions, o thus o acquire o conclusivity. Furthermore,oalso o theo ad oidemo appointment oofoMr. oA.oBanerjee, FinancialoCommissionero(Revenue)oandoSecretaryotooGovt.oHaryana,oto visitotheorelevantositesoandotoomakeorecommendation(s)oquaoamenability 2023.09.09 16:37 orootherwiseoofotheoacquiredolandsofromobecomingoreleasedooronot,odo RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -5-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo therebyoalsooacquireobindingoandoconclusiveoeffect.o

¶8Pre-eminentlyowhenotheoappositeorecommendation(s)oas madeobyotheoFinancialoCommissioneroconcerned,obecameothusoapproved evenobyotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt.oTherefore,otheorecommendation(s) favourableotootheoestateoholdersoasowelloasounfavourableotootheoestate holdersoareotoobeoconcludedotoobecomeoaffirmedobyotheoHon'bleoApex Court.oTheofurtheroaptocorollaryothereof,oisothat,otheopetitionersocannot makeoanyochallengeotootheorecommendation(s)oadversarialotoothemoas madeobyotheosaidoFinancialoCommissionerothusoinohisoreport.o

¶9Moreover,othoughotheoaboveomadeoverdict(s)oofodismissal, asomade,oonotheopreviousowritopetition(s),othusoacquireoconclusiveoand bindingoeffectoandotherebyocompletelyoestop,otheopetitionersofromore-casting,othusosimilarotheretoocausesoofoaction,oand,oalmostosimilar thereto(s)orelief(s),oratheroinotheoinstantoreviewoapplicationobeforeothis Court.o

¶10Nonetheless, o the o petitioners o claim(s), o that o since o other similarlyosituatedolandsobecameoreleasedofromoacquisition,othusoon principleoofoparity,othereupon,otheopetitionersoareoalsooentitledotooseekoa validoclaimoforotheoreleasesoofotheowritoproperty(ies).

11.o Evenotheoaboveoraisedogroundoisomerit-less,o ogivenothe aboveoreliefoasoclaimedoinotheoearlierowritopetition(s),othusobecoming rejectedoonotheoplank,othat,otheoappositeoadversarialorecommendation(s) asobecameomadeobyotheoFinancial oCommissioneroconcerned,othus becomingovalidatedobyotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt,otherebyore-ventilation ofotheosaidoreliefoinotheoinstantoreviewoapplication,obyotheopetitioners, whoohoweveroearlierodidonotoaccessotheoHon'bleoApexoCourt,oisoalso 2023.09.09 16:37 barredothusoonotheoplankoofovindication,oratherobecomingorenderedoby RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -6-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo the o Hon'ble o Apex o Court o qua o the o apposite o adversarial recommendation(s),oas,omadeoquaotheoestateoholdersobyotheoFinancial Commissioner o concerned. o Therefore, o given o the o validation o of o the adversarial o recommendation(s), o as, o made o by o the o Financial Commissionerohenceomadeoagainstotheowritopetitionersoratheroinohis report,otherebyoalsootheosaidoadversarialorecommendation(s)odeserves becomingocountenancedoobyothisoCourt.o

¶12Consequently,othisoCourtoisoboundotoorevereotheoadversarial recommendation(s)omadeobyotheoFinancialoCommissioneroconcernedoin hisoreport.oTherefore,otheoreviewoapplicants-petitionersocannotoargue thatotheyoareoentitledotooraiseoaoclaimoforotheirsobecomingoexempted fromoacquisition.

13.o Theolearnedocounseloforotheoreviewoapplicants-petitioners submits,othatosubsequentotootheoissuanceoofonotification(s)o(supra),othe petitionerso o oinstitutedoobjectionsounderoSectiono5AoofotheoLand AcquisitionoAct,o1894o(hereinafteroforoshortocalledoasotheo'Actoofo1894'. Inotheosaidoobjectionsotheopetitionersocontendedothatoonotheoacquired lands o they o had o made o A o Class o constructions. o Consequently, o it o is contendedothatotheoorderomadeobyotheorespondentoconcerned,orejecting theosaidoobjections,owhereafter,otheyohadoissuedoaodeclarationounder Section o6 o ofo theo'Act oofo1894'o(Annexure oP-2),othusois o tainted. Moreover,oitoisoalsoocontendedothatotheorespondentsohaveoproceededoto adopt otheopractices oofoinvidious odiscrimination,oinasmuchoas,othe respondentsoreleasingotheoacquiredolandsovis-a-visootheroestateoholders, whereas,otheorespondentsoyetoproceedingotoosubjectotheopetitionolandsoto acquisition,othroughomakingotheoimpugnedonotification(s).oo 2023.09.09 16:37 14.o However,oforotheoreasonsotoobeoassignedohereinafter,othe RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -7-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo aboveomadeogroundoisorudderlessoandoisorejected.oTheoprimaryoreasons fororejectingotheoaboveogroundoisofounded,oupon,otheorespondentsoin theiroreply-affidavit,oasowelloasoinotheiroarguments,ofirmlyocontending thatotheowritoland(s),owasoacquiredoforofurtheringotheorequisiteopublic purpose,obutoonlyoonoaccountooforenditionoofointerimoordersoagainstothe petitioners o becoming o dis-possessed o fromo the o said o lands, o that o the execution o of o the o public o work, o thus, o became o forestalled. o Since predominanceoisotoobeoassignedotootheopublicopurposeothanotooindividual interestsoofotheoestateoholdersoconcerned.oTherefore,oinodoingoso,othis Courtorefrainsotooallowotheopetitionersoclaimoforotheoacquiredolands becomingoreleasedofromoacquisition.o

15.o Furthermore,otheosaidoclaimocouldohaveobeenowellofounded onlyoinotermsoofoSectiono48oofotheo'Actoofo1894'ooprovisionsowhereofoare extractedohereinafter. "48. o Completion o of o acquisition o not o compulsory, o but compensationotoobeoawardedowhenonotocompleted.o-o(1) Except o in o the o case o provided o for o in o section o 36, o the Governmentoshallobeoatolibertyotoowithdrawofromothe acquisitionoofoanyolandoofowhichopossessionohasonotobeen taken.o

(2)oWheneverotheoGovernmentowithdrawsofromoanyosuch acquisition,otheoCollectoroshallodetermineotheoamountoof compensationodueoforotheodamageosufferedobyotheoowneroin consequenceoofotheonoticeooroofoanyoproceedingsothere under,oandoshallopayosuchoamountotootheopersonointerested, togetherowithoallocostsoreasonablyoincurredobyohimoinothe prosecutionoofotheoproceedingsounderothisoActorelatingoto theosaidoland.o

(3)oxxxxx 2023.09.09 16:37 16.o However,osinceotheostageofororeleasesoofotheoacquiredolands RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -8-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo becomingocausedoinotermsoofotheostatutoryoprovisionso(supra),othusocould beodoneoonlyobeforeotheoassumptionoofopossessionothereofoand/orobefore theopronouncementoofoaward,oand,onotosubsequentothereto(s).oTherefore, whenotheoorder,oifoany,othusodismissingotheoobjectionsoratherowas requiredotoobeoassailedopromptly,othusoonoitsobecomingomade,owhereas, itoremainingoomittedotoobeochallenged,otherebyotheopetitionersoare estoppedoonoaccountoofoappositeowaiversoandoabandonments,otoomakeoa challengeotootheodismissaloorders,oifoany,oasobecameomadeoonotheir objections,oas,ocastounderoSectiono5Aoofotheo'Actoofo1894'.o

17.o Theofurtheroconsequenceothereof,oisoalso,othatosinceothe discretionotoobeoexercisedowithinotheoambitoofoSectiono48o(supra)oas occursoinotheo'Actoofo1894',oisotoobeoexercisedopriorotootheoassumptionoof possessionooropriorotootheomakingoofotheoawardoofotheoacquiredolands, whereas,otheoawardoinotheoinstant ocaseobecomingopronouncedoon

16.03.1989,onorowhenoaopromptopetitionobecameofiledobeforeothisoCourt, challengingotheoorder,oifoany,orejectingotheoobjectionsoasoraisedounder Sectiono5Aoofotheo'Actoofo1894'.oConsequently,otheoclaimofororeleasing theowritolandsofromoacquisition,oespeciallyowhenotheosameobecomes acquiredoforosub-servingotheorequisiteopublicopurpose,oisobothomis-foundedoandoaomis-espousedorelief,oand,oisoliableotoobeorejected.

¶18Now,oassuminglyothereowasopromptoraisingoofochallenge(s) byotheopetitionersoinotheodismissaloorderomadeoonotheiroobjections,oyet whenoapartofromothisoCourtoorderingoforostayingotheodis-possessionoof theopetitionersofromotheodisputedolands,othusonotomakingoanyoorder restrainingotheorespondentsofromomakingoanoaward.oResutlantlyothe effectoofotheononopassingoofotheoordero(Supra),oisothat,otheodismissal 2023.09.09 16:37 order,oifoany,oasobecameomadeoonotheorelevantoobjection(s),omergesointo RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -9-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo theoawardoasomadeoquaotheoacquiredolands,otherebyotheochallengeotoothe order,oifoany,orejectingotheoobjectionsofiledounderoSectiono5Aoofotheo'Act ofo1894',othusobecomesoinfructuous.

19.o Consequently,otheoaboveogroundoofodiscriminationobut raisedoonoparityobeingodeniedotootheoreviewoapplicants-petitionersoqua similarly o situated o lands o of o estate o holders o concerned, o is o thus, o a completelyorudderlessoargumentoandoisorejected.

¶20Theofurtheroreasonofororejectingotheoaboveosubmission becomesofoundedouponotheofactumothatotheorelevantopetitionowhereins theoinstantoreviewoapplicationohasobeenofiled,oratherobeingohitobyoaogross pervasiveoviceoofodelaysoandolaches.oTheoreasonoforomakingotheoabove conclusionobecomesosparkedofromotheofactum,othatotheochallengeotoothe afore,ohasobeenomadeoafteroalmostothirtyofiveoyearsoelapsing,osinceothe launching o of o acquisition o proceedings o under o the o 'Act o of o 1894'. Resultantly,otheoappositeoreviewoapplicationobeingohitobyotheoaboveovice asosuch,otheoreviewoapplicationodeservesobecomingorejected.oo

21.o EvenotheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoinoaojudgmentorenderedoin case otitled o"M/soStaroWireo(India)oLtd.oV/soStateoofoHaryanaoand others",oreportedoino(1996)o11oSCCo698,ohasoinotheorelevantoparagraph ofoitsoverdict,oparagraphowhereofobecomesoextractedohereinafter,othus declaredothatoanyobelatedochallenge,oasomadeotootheorelevantolawfulofully terminatedoacquisitionoproceedings,othusoisohitobyotheovicesoofodelayoand laches,oandotherebyotoo,otheosaidobelatedomotionoasoexistingoinothe instant o review o application, o is o but o required o to o be o declared o as misconstituted. "ShrioP.P.oRao,olearnedoseniorocounseloforotheopetitioner,ocontends KAVNEET SINGH that o the o petitioner o had o no o knowledge o of o the o acquisition RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -10-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section

¶16In Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana [J] 1995

(8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 284] and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) 325], this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 1 SCC 124], this Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narsimha Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8) SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Hari Om Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687]; Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494] and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC 394] wherein this Court had held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [JT 1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 KAVNEET SINGH and the award of the Collector under Section 11. " RA-CW-202-2012o(Oo&oM)oinoCWP-6171-1991 -11-2023:PHHC:118132-DBo FinaloorderoofothisoCourt.

22.o Inoaftermath,othisoCourtofindsonooerroroapparentoonotheoface ofotheorecordoinotheoverdictomadeobyothisoCourtoono07.11.2011oinoCWP-6171-1991.

¶23Sinceotheoinstantoapplicationoisocompletelyofrivolous,othus isorequiredotoobeodismissedowithocosts.oTherefore,otheosameoisodismissed withocostsoofoRs.o50,000/-otoobeoforthwithodepositedobyotheoreview-applicantsowithotheo'HimachaloPradeshoAapadaoRaahatoKosho-o2023' foromitigatingotheonaturalodisasteroinotheoStateoconcerned.o

¶25Sinceotheomainocase/applicationoitselfohasobeenodecided, thus,oallotheopendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oalsoostand(s)odisposedoof. o ooooooo(SURESHWARoTHAKUR) ooooooooooJUDGEo o(KULDEEPoTIWARI)

05.09.2023 JUDGE kavneetosinghooo Whetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whetheroreportable : Yes/No