NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. versus PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. on 31 March 2022

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnatakaat Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected with Writ AppealNo.1950 of 2007.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals areas follows:

Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children (respondentsherein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and 23034/2002 before theHigh Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order dated27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authorityand the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Noticedated 24.05.2002 issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extentof land found in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. They A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aare the owners of the lands bearing Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11measuring 35 guntas, 25 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas respectively ofSrigandadakaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Smt. Pillamma diedduring the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Herchildren who were already on record continued the proceedings beforethe High Court. Their father, late Mariyappa s/o Channappa had purchasedBthe lands under a deed of sale dated 30.08.1954 from one Venkatappa.

3. Appellants are the legal representatives of one Nadakerappa.Nadakerappa claiming to be the tenant of the said lands filed twoapplications in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the said landsalong with two other lands i.e. Survey No(s).4/14 and 65. The LandCTribunal by its order dated 30.04.1982 granted occupancy rights in favourof Nadakerappa in respect of the lands bearing Survey No.4/7 to anextent of 35 guntas, Survey No.4/2 to an extent of 25 guntas and SurveyNo.1/11 to an extent of 25 guntas. Certificate of registration was issuedin favour of Nadakerappa in respect of these lands on 08.09.1982 to theDextent indicated above. Nadakerappa paid an amount of Rs.462/- towardspremium for the grant of certificate of registration. The compensation inrespect of the granted lands was ordered to be paid to the land ownerson 27.11.1984 by Nadakerappa. It is to be noticed here that Mariyappawas not made party to the said applications filed by Nadakerappa. In theapplication dated 31.12.1974, the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/oEByrappa was shown as land owner and, in another application dated30.10.1974, the ownership column was left blank.

4. Mariyappa filed Writ Petition No.12461/1984 before the HighCourt challenging the order of the Land Tribunal which came to betransferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the same wasFnumbered as LRA No.179/1986. The Appellate Authority by its orderdated 27.02.1989, dismissed the appeal for default. Mariyappa died inthe year 1993.

5. Mariyappa, during his life time, had filed an application beforethe Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, to rectify the revenue entry forGthe year 1989-90 and to show his name in respect of 29 guntas of land inSurvey No.1/11. However, on 25.04.1992, the Tahsildar passed an orderadverse to the interest of Mariyappa. Mariyappa filed an appeal beforethe Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.196/1992-93 challenging the saidorder which was also dismissed on 26.10.1995. Since Mariyappa died inHthe year 1993, his legal representatives filed Revision Petition No.118/

2001 before the Special Deputy Commissioner challenging the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner. The said Revision Petition was allowed bythe Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 19.04.2002.Nadakerappa challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowed on 01.07.2002.Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, asalso the Special Deputy Commissioner, were set aside. The order inWrit Petition No.20187/2002 stood confirmed in Writ Appeal No.3971/2002.

6. In the meanwhile, Nadakerappa filed a suit bearingO.S.No.7459/1991 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, seekinginjunction in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land in Survey No.1/11 ofSrigandadakaval Village. The Civil Court granted an order of temporaryinjunction in the said suit. This order was challenged by the land ownersin MFA No.319/1993 before the High Court. The said appeal wasdisposed of by the High Court on 08.07.1998 restraining the parties fromcutting and removing the trees standing thereon to an extent of 29 guntas.Finally, O.S. No.7459/1991 was decreed by the Civil Court on 21.05.2003.The land owners challenged this judgment by filing an appeal, RFANo.1134/2003 before the High Court. After considering the matter indetail, the High Court has dismissed the appeal on 10.01.2014.

7. Nadakerappa had filed a memo in the year 2002 before theLand Tribunal seeking correction of a clerical mistake found in the orderof the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982. On receipt of the memo, theLand Tribunal issued a notice to the land owners for an enquiry. Theland owners filed Writ Petition No.23034/2002 challenging the validityand correctness of the said notice. They also filed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 challenging the Appellate Authority’s order dated 27.02.1989dismissing LRA No.179/1986 and also the order dated 30.04.1982 passedby the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Nadakerappa.

8. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated25.07.2007 dismissed Writ Petition No.27230/2002 filed by the landowners on the ground of delay and laches. The other writ petition, i.e.W.P.No.23034/2002 filed by the land owners was allowed and the noticedated 24.05.2002 was quashed by the High Court.

9. Nadakerappa represented by his legal representativeschallenged the order passed in Writ Petition No.23034/2002 by filing A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AWrit Appeal No.1563/2007. The land owners challenged the other orderpassed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 by filing Writ Appeal No.1950/2007. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed Writ AppealNo.1950/2007 and the order passed in Writ Petition No.27230/2002 wasset aside. Consequently, the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982and the order passed by the Appellate Authority in LRA No.179/1986Bwere quashed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal forfresh disposal. In view of this order, the High Court held that Writ AppealNo.1563/2007 has become infructuous. As noticed above, these ordersare under challenge in these appeals.

10. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in theseCappeals. The first question is whether the Division Bench was justifiedin reversing the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.23034/2002, setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 andremanding the matter to the Land Tribunal. The second question iswhether the Learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the noticeDdated 24.05.2002.

11. On the first question, Shri A.N. Venugopal Gowda, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that there is a longand inordinate delay of 20 years in challenging the order of the LandTribunal. He further submits that the appellants are in possession of theElands in question as protected tenants from the year 1955 and therespondents were well-aware of the proceedings as early as in the year1993. Mariyappa, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents hadnot prosecuted the case against Nadakerappa. Accepting theses grounds,the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The DivisionBench of the High Court has set aside the said order in a mechanicalFmanner and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal without anyjustification. He has urged several other grounds in support of the orderof the Learned Single Judge on this question.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Kiran Suri, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submit that NadakerappaGfiled the application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights whereinthe column earmarked for the name of the landlord was kept blank.Though there is no provision for filing a second Form No.7, he filed thesame in which the name of the landlord was shown as “RamaKrishnappa”. It is further submitted that Nadakerappa obtained the orderHof the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 by playing fraud upon the said Tribunal. The respondents, having obtained the order by playing fraud,cannot be allowed to keep the fruits of the said order. In view of theabove, finality of the litigation cannot be pressed into service. In thisconnection, they have relied on several judgments of this Court. Secondly,it is submitted that there is no documentary evidence before the LandTribunal to establish the relationship of tenant and landlord which is apre-requisite under Section 2(33) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

13. On the second question, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.N.Venugopal Gowda, submits that having regard to the amendment toSection 48-A of the Act wherein a proviso was added by Act No.31 of1995, Nadakerappa filed a memo for correction of clerical error in theorder. The Land Tribunal rightly issued notice on this memo to therespondents. Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in quashingthe said notice on the ground of delay. However, learned senior counselappearing for the respondents, have sought to justify the order of thelearned Single Judge.

14. Before considering the above questions, it is necessary toconsider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties as to theexistence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant betweenMariyappa, the landlord and Nadakerappa who had filed the applicationin Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands inquestion. Materials on record clearly establish that Venkatappa was theoriginal owner of these lands. He had executed a sale deed dated28.08.1954 in favour of Mariyappa which was registered on 30.08.1954.However, Venkatappa sold these properties again in favour ofSharabaradhya by a deed of sale dated 07.07.1954 registered on21.10.1954. As the sale deed executed in favour of Sharabaradhya wassubsequent to the sale deed executed in favour of Mariyappa,Sharabaradhya could not get any right, title or interest over the saidproperties. Sharabaradhya executed registered lease of deeds dated29.04.1955 and 23.05.1956 in respect of the lands in question in favourof Nadakerappa. It is relevant to note here that Sharabaradhya executedthe registered deed of relinquishment on 24.09.1964 in respect of theseproperties in favour of Venkatappa. It is no doubt true that when theselease deeds were executed in favour of Nadakerappa, Sharabaradhyahad no right, title or interest in respect of these properties. However,after the execution of these lease deeds, the name of Nadakerappa was AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aentered in the RTC. It is also clear that after execution of the leasedeeds, Nadakerappa was put in possession of the properties as a tenant.The contention of the learned counsel for the landlord is that there is nocontract of tenancy between the landlord Mariyappa and Nadakerappa.However, learned counsel for the appellants has contended thatNadakerappa was a protected tenant as defined under sub-section (34)Bof Section 2 of the Act.

15. The expression ‘tenant’ is defined in sub-section (34) of Section2 of the Act. As per this provision, a tenant includes a person who is aprotected tenant. The expression ‘tenancy’ is defined in sub-section (33)Cof Section 2, which means relationship of landlord and tenant. Sub-section(27) of Section 2 defines the expression ‘protected tenant’, which meansa tenant of any land if he has held it continuously and cultivating itpersonally for a period of not less than twelve years prior to the appointedday. The appointed day here is 01.03.1974.

D16. Materials on record would clearly indicate that Nadakerappawas in possession and cultivating the lands from the date of the aforesaidlease deeds. In fact, this position has been admitted by the landlord whichis evident from the documents produced by the appellant along with IANo.103954 of 2021. The appellant has produced the certified copy of anapplication in Form No.7 dated 27.12.1974 filed by Mariyappa seekingEgrant of occupancy rights of some other lands in Sajjepalya Village,Bangalore, North Taluk dated 27.12.1974. While filing application in FormNo.7, the applicant is not only required to give the description of the landin respect of which he seeks registration of occupancy rights underSection 45 of the Act but is also required to give details of the lands heldFby him or his family for the purpose of considering ceiling on land holdingsunder Chapter-IV of the Act. The form of the application is statutorilyprescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974(for short ‘the Rules’). Form No.7 prescribed under Rule 19(1) is asunder:

G“FORM 7

[See Rule 19(1)]

Application under Section 48-A(1) for registering as an occupantunder Section 45

To

The Tribunal……………………………..TalukName of the applicant……………………………Age Profession Place of residence I am the tenant/sub-tenant of the following land:

I have been cultivating the land as a tenantfor……………years.

I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of theland on the terms and conditions laid down in the Karnataka LandReforms Act, 1961.

I, the family of which I am a member, hold thefollowing lands in my name and in the names of my familymembers other than those described above as owner/tenant/or in any other capacity:-

1. Self

2. Wife

3. Minor Children

4. Unmarried daughters

5. Any other particulars

Place:…………………Date:………………….

Signature of applicant

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

The Tahsildar should check up the above informationwith reference to original records and keep ready for enquiry bythe Tribunal.

A

Note: The information given above, if found to be incompleteor incorrect the petitioner is liable to conviction and levy of penaltiesBas provided under Section 125 of the Act.”

17. In the Form No.7 filed by Mariyappa, he has admitted thatSurvey Nos.11/1, 4/2 and 4/7 of Srigandadakaval Village owned by him;is in the possession of Nadakerappa as a tenant.

18. Learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners submitsCthat the document Form No.7 said to have been filed by Mariyappa, is afabricated document and that the respondents have filed a complaintbefore the jurisdictional police station in this regard. It is also submittedthat there is no statutory requirement for including the lands owned bythe tenant in the said application.

D

19. Form No.7 filed by the appellant is a certified copy. Havingperused the said document, we have no hesitation to hold that it is not afabricated document. Form No.7 requires the applicant to disclose theother lands held by him and the members of his family. When the landlordhimself admits that Nadakerappa was a tenant as early as on 27.12.1974,Ethere is no question of holding that no relationship of landlord and tenantexisted between Mariyappa and Nadakerappa. Perusal of the materialson record, makes it clear that Nadakerappa was in possession andcultivating the said lands from the year 1955 and was qualified to betreated as a ‘protected tenant’.

F20. Now, let us consider the first question involved in these appeals.As noticed above, Mariyappa was the owner of the property by virtueof the Sale Deed dated 30.08.1954. However, Nadakerappa did not showhis name in the application filed on 30.10.1974 in Form No.7 for grant ofoccupancy rights. In fact, he did not show anybody’s name as the landowner of the property and left the said column blank. However, in theGconcluding part of his application in Form No.7, he has mentioned thatthe said property is standing in the name of Mariyappa s/o Channappa.In the second application in Form No.7 filed by Nadakerappa dated31.12.1974 he has shown the name of one Ramakrishnappa s/o Byrappa.The land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by Order dated 30.04.1982in respect of Survey No(s).4/7, 4/2 and 1/11 to an extent of 35 guntas, 25H

guntas and 25 guntas respectively. Mariyappa challenged the said orderof the Land Tribunal by filing W.P. NO.12461/1984 before the HighCourt of Karnataka. This Case was referred to the Appellate Authoritywherein it was re-numbered as LRA No.179/1986. The said LRA wasdismissed on 27.02.1989. No steps were taken up by Mariyappa to seeksetting aside of this order. Mariyappa passed away on 15.10.1993. Thelegal representatives of Mariyappa filed W.P. No.27230/2002 seekingquashing of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and alsothe order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.02.1989. This writ petitionwas filed after a long delay of 13 years from the date of dismissal ofLRA No.179/1986. The only reason assigned for the delay was thefinancial problems and ill-health. Learned Single Judge of the High Courthas dismissed this writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

21. As mentioned above, it is clear that though LRA was dismissedby the Appellate Authority on 27.02.1989, Mariyappa did not choose tochallenge the said order. Even otherwise, the respondents were awareof the order of the Land Tribunal which is evident from differentproceedings initiated by them against the appellants. The dismissal ofLRA No.179/1986 was accepted by Mariyappa. In fact, in the year1992, Mariyappa filed an application to rectify the entry for the year1989-90 by entering his name in respect of 29 guntas of land in SurveyNo.1/11. The Tahsildar dismissed the said application of Mariyappa on25.04.1992. This order was challenged by Mariyappa by filing an appealbefore the Assistant Commissioner which was also dismissed on26.10.1995. In the meantime, Mariyappa died. After a lapse of sevenyears a review petition i.e. R.P.No.118/2001 was filed by the legalrepresentatives of Mariyappa before the Special Deputy Commissionerwhich was allowed on 19.04.2002. Nadakerappa challenged this orderby filing W.P.No.20187/2002 before the High Court which was allowedby the learned Single Judge on 01.07.2002. A writ appeal, W.A.No.3971/2002, filed by the legal representatives of Mariyappa was dismissed on02.08.2002. After the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Nadakerappa’sname was entered in the RTC to the full extent of 1 acre 14 guntas ofland in Survey No.1/11. When attempts were made by the landlord todispossess him of the said land, he filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.4171/1991. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of theNadakerappa. This order was modified by the Order in MFA No.319/1993. These proceedings would clearly show the grant of occupancyrights in favour of Nadakerappa. Therefore, they cannot plead ignorance AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof grant of occupancy right on 30.04.1982. There is also no merit in thecontention of the respondents-landlords that on account of ill health andfinancial problems, they could not approach the Court within a reasonabletime. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissedthe writ petition on the ground of delay. The observations of the learnedSingle Judge in this regard are as under:B

“After passing of the order of the Land Tribunal, proceedingshave arisen both on civil side as well as on the revenue side. Asaforementioned, the dispute arose between the parties with regardto change of katha in the year1989. Ultimately, the matter cameup to the Division Bench in this Court in W.A. No.3971/2002,Cwherein it is held that the parties have to get their matter settled in an appropriate forum such as the Land Tribunal. Asaforementioned, civil suit is also filed by the third respondent againstthe petitioners herein for injunction in O.S. No.7459/1991. Nowthe matter is pending in RFA No. 1134/2003 before this Court. InDall these revenue as well as civil proceedings, the petitioners hereinare parties. The appeal filed by the petitioners in LRA No.179/86before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was dismissed fordefault on 27.2.1989. W.P. 27230/2002 questioning the order ofthe Land Reforms Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1989 and theorder of the Land Tribunal dated 30.4.1982 is filed before thisECourt in the year 2002 i.e., after the lapse of about 13 years fromthe date of dismissal of LRA No. 179/1986. The only reasonassigned by the petitioners for filing the belated writ petition isthat because of financial and ill health they could not move thisCourt. The said reason cannot be accepted inasmuch as theFpetitioners have been fighting litigation either in Revenue Courtsor in Civil Court or before this Court……………...; Thepetitioners knew very well the order passed by the Land Tribunaland the appellate authority at least in the year 1989, when therevenue litigation arose. Moreover the petitioners in their writtenstatement filed in O.S. No.7459/1991, have stated that the TribunalGhas granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 over25 guntas in Sy. No.1/11. Thus, W.P. No.27230/2002 is liable tobe dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This Court odesnot wish to unsettle the settled matter by entertaining the writpetition. Petitioners have accepted the order of the Land TribunalHand have acted on the said basis for 13 long years. Now it is not open for them to contend that they did not know the order of theLand Tribunal.”

22. However, the contention of the respondents is that the nameof land owner was not shown in the application Form No.7 and that theorder from the Land Tribunal was obtained by suppression of materialfacts.

23. We have already noticed that in the first application thoughthe name of Nadakerappa was not shown in the landlord’s column, thesame was mentioned at its concluding portion. Therefore, it wasunnecessary for him to file the second application wherein the land ownerwas shown as Ramakrishnappa. These applications were filed as earlyas on 30.10.1974 and on 31.12.1974. The Karnataka Land ReformsAct, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights tocultivating tenants of agricultural lands. It is a well-settled canon ofconstruction that in construing the provisions of such enactments, thecourt should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthersthe object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the sameand render the protection illusory. The object of the Act was mainly toconfer ownership on the tenants of the lands. Section 45 was introducedby Act No.1 of 1974 w.e.f. 01.03.1974 providing for registration ofoccupancy rights in favour of the tenant. Rules have been framed inexercise of the power conferred under Section 137 of the Act toeffectuate the purpose of the Act. Rule 19 provides for the form ofapplication and notice. This rule clearly states that on receipt of anapplication, the Tahsildar shall send extracts of the application to theTribunals concerned. So far as the lands in his Taluk are concerned, theTahsildar has to verify the particulars mentioned in the application withreference to the revenue records including the record of rights whereverthey are prepared and also note the same on the application.

24. It is common knowledge that most of the tenants during therelevant point of time i.e. nineteen seventies were underprivileged andilliterate villagers hailing from remote and far-flung areas. A large numberof tenants were lacking from the adequate and basic necessities of lifeand were suffering from the acute poverty. Legislature has recognizedthis aspect and has cast responsibility on the Tahsildar to verify theparticulars mentioned in the application with reference to the RevenueRecords and to note the same on the application. Therefore, it was theduty of the Tahsildar to verify the Revenue Records and other documents A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aand incorporate/record the name of the owner of the land in Form No.7.Having perused the materials on record, we are satisfied that the tenantin the instant case has not practiced any fraud in order to get theoccupancy rights registered in his name.

25. The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons,Bhas set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has remandedthe matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the order of remandcannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot alsobe passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lowercourt or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the AppellateCourt to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have ledCoral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide theappeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or theTribunal. We are of the view that, in the instant case, the Division Benchhas remanded the matter without any justification.

26. In view of our finding, as above, it is unnecessary to considerDthe other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on thefirst question.

27. Coming to the second question, W.P.No.23034/2002 was filedchallenging the notice issued by the Land Tribunal dated 24.05.2002 onthe basis of a memo filed by the tenant for correction of the surveyEnumber. A proviso has been added to Section 48-A of ‘the Act’ by ActNo.31 of 1995 which has come into force w.e.f. 20.10.1995 which readsas under:

“Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on theapplication of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded inFwriting correct the extent of land in any order passed by it aftercausing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity ofbeing heard to the concerned parties.”

28. In view of the above proviso, it was permissible for the tenantto make an application seeking correction of the extent of land in theGorder of the Land Tribunal. The proviso was inserted on 20.10.1995 andthe memo seeking correction of the order of the Land Tribunal was filedin the year, 2002. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justifiedin quashing the Notice issued by the Land Tribunal on the ground ofdelay of about 20 years. We have already noticed that most of the tenantsare villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate personsH

and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept inmind while deciding cases under the Act. Whether the order requirescorrection or not has to be decided by the Land Tribunal, after hearingthe parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.No.20187 of 2002 on 01.07.2012 which arose out of the dispute relatingto entries in revenue records, had observed that whether Nadakerappais entitled to the entire extent of 1 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy.No. 1/11, andwhether his application for correction is maintainable are matters to bedecided by the Tribunal. This order of the learned Single Judge has beenconfirmed by the Division Bench. For the aforesaid reasons, we are ofthe view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing theNotice. The Division Bench has held that in view of setting aside theOrder of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982, the Writ Appeal has becomeinfructuous. In our view, the matter requires adjudication by the LandTribunal on this question.

29. In view of the above, we pass the following order:

(I) The order in Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka atBengaluru is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge inW.P.No.27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 is restored.

(II) The order in Writ Appeal NO.1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge inW.P.No.23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 is also set aside. We directthe Land Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the notice dated 24.05.2002and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible.

30. These appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H