w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ganpat Lal & Others v/s State & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    Civil Writ Petition No. 1633 of 1986

    Decided On, 13 October 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. VERMA

    For the Appellants: S.M. Mehta, A.K. Vajpai, Advocates. For the Respondents: N.L. Pareek, Advocate.



Judgment Text

J.C. Verma, J.

1. Agriculture land in Khasra Nos. 396 and 397 measuring 15 Biswas and 1 Bigha 15 Biswas respectively situated in Village Palsana belonged to the petitioner Ganpatlal and Chouth Mal, father of the petitioners No. 2 to 5 and husband of petitioner No. 6. Shri Kanhaiyalal Tambi, who was the father of petitioner Ganpatlal and the deceased Chouthmal and late Shri Jamunadas was elder brother of Ganpatlal and late Shri Chouth Mal. A school had been constructed by said Shri Kanhaiyalal and late Shri Chouthmal which was donated to the government in the year 1949. It is admitted fact that the School in the name of late Shri Kanhaiyalal Tambi Govt. Secondary School, Palsana, is still in existence. This school has now been upgraded from Secondary to Senior Secondary. A donation deed was also executed in Feb. 1971. The above said Khasra No. 396 and 397 were abutting the buildings of the school. The school authorities required more land for the purpose of school ground, and, therefore, Shri Ganpatlal and late Shri Chouth Mal were approached by the authorities for handing over these khasras to the school so that me boundary of the school be extended. The land abutted not only the school boundary but it was situated on the National Highway. In lieu of the said land a proposal was made by the authorities to hand over a part of the land in exchange, to the said persons situated in khasra Nos. 231 measuring 10 Bighas. Out of the said area of 10 Bigha 10 Biswas, 1 and 2 Bigha and 10 Biswas, land was to be handed over to said Shri Ganpatlal and late Shri Chouthmal. The area was demarcated and the new Khasra was allotted as Khasra No. 231/1 and a separate allotment was made in favour of said persons in lieu and in exchange of the land situated in Khasra No. 396 and 397. This was so accomplished in the year 1972. Of course even though the final decision of exchange was implemented in the year 1972 but the matter was being negotiated right from 1962 onwards. The Collector, Sikar, vide his order dated 3-6-72, ultimately when the exchange was approved, made the allotment of the area 2 Bigha 10 Biswas in the name of the ancestral of petitioners. The order of the Collector, has been reproduced at page 7 of the writ petition which is not denied. The mutation of the said land was also entered in the name of the said two persons. Even the demarcated map was also prepared. Copy of the mutation has been annexed as Annex-6.

2. One Rameshwar Dass, Sarpanch was having certain objections and he filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority challenging the decision of the Collector by which the exchange was allowed. This appeal was dismissed on 6-5-74 vide Annex. 7 attached to the writ petition. No further action was taken by any of the authority nor the order or action of exchange of land was challenged by any person before any authority. It was after 13 years of the said allotment or mutation when the petitioner was issued notice by the Tehsildar on 6th Sept. 1985, vide Annex. 8 stating therein to explain as to why certain building material has been placed or collected by the petitioners in Khasra No. 231. Petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice vide Annex-9 on 12th Sept. 1985 by giving all the details of exchange. It was stated by the petitioners in Annex. 7 that the petitioner was only constructing boundary wall around the area allotted to them in lieu of the exchange of the land which transaction had been completed in the year 1972. The petitioners have alleged that because of some political rivalry and political reasons they have been harassed by one Shri Narain Singh who had contested elections from Danta Ramgarh Assembly Constituency as a Congress (I) candidate for the reasons that the family of the petitioner was the supporters of Bhartiya Janta Party. A complaint was made by the petitioners vide Annex. 10 but without any result. Even said Shri Narain Singh, M.L.A., had tried to raise the issue in Assembly by putting starred question No. 76, wherein an answer was said to have been given to the fact that the possession from the land in question shall be got vacated from the petitioners and consequently, on 26th March 1986 impugned order Annex. 11 was passed wherein the Dy. Secretary (Admn.) Government of Rajasthan, had stated that the earlier order passed on 3-6-72, allotment of alternative land in lieu of .exchange land was not according to the rules and, therefore, the orde r dated 3-6-1972 is to be withdrawn. The District Collector, Sikar, was asked to get the possession vacated not only from the land in Khasra No. 231 but also land in Khasra No. 394 measuring 11 Biswas situated in Village Palsana, which land had also been allotted to the petitioners earlier. Admittedly the order Annex-11 was passed without issuing any show cause notice to any of the petitioners and also without stating any reason whatsoever in the impugned order.

3. It is stated that the one Jagirdar Khandelapana had earlier issued a patta of land measuring 12 Bigha 5 Biswas in favour of late Chouthmal and Bansidhar Tambi in Oct. 1954 which land included the area of 1 Bigha of land of Khasra No. 394, and as such 1 Bigha of land in Khasra No. 394 continued to be in continuous possession of said persons right from 1954. The Gram Panchayat Palsana had also granted permission on Oct. 1960 to construct a boundary wall around this land Khasra no. 394. In the year 1967 about this land of Khasra No. 394, the Tehsildar had passed certain adverse orders against the then occupants but the order was set-aside by the Additional Collector, Sikar on 16-11-1967. The case was remanded back to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar again reiterated his earlier order which was again appealed before the Collector and the Collector vide his order dated 8-4-69 had set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Sikar, by giving a direction to the Tehsildar to reconsider the matter in view of the patta issued by the then Jagirdar of Khandela Pana. When the true facts were brought to the notice of the Tehsildar, the Tehsildar regularised the possession of the then occupants Ganpatlal and late Chouthmal over Khasra No. 395/1 measuring 18 Biswa and Khasra No. 394 measuring 1 Bigha. The State Government had challenged the said order passed by the Tehsildar on 26th August 1970 before the Collector in the year 1983 i.e. after a period of 13 years. The State Government had thought to file an appeal against the order of Tehsildar. The appeal of the State Government was dismissed on 4-9-85 and the order passed by the Tehsildar was maintained vide order Annexure-12.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the advisory Committee had allotted another one bigha of land out of Khasra No. 394 in the meeting held on 3-6-74 in which Advisory Committee Shri Narain Singh who had raised the question in Assembly was also a member. This allotment was also separately challenged by the State under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agricultural purposes) Rules, 1970. The case of the State was dismissed by the Collector on 24th July 1985 and the order of allotment of additional land of 1 Bigha in Khasra No. 394 as made by the Advisory Committee and the SDO, Sikar on 3-6-74, was maintained. The order dated 3-6-74 and order dated 24th July 1985 are attached as Annex. 13 and 14 respectively.

5. It is stated that some dispute had arisen about the actual demarcations and the measurements of the Khasra numbers involved which were in possession of the petitioners and various directions were passed for effecting the measurement and ultimately a physical measurement was made on 11/12th Jan. 1986 in the presence of the school authorities. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Palsana, Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat and other persons in pursuance of the directions issued by the SDO, Sikar. The demarcation was made by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Land Surveyor Shri Ashok Kumar Sen and the Inspector Hargovind. Report was submitted vide Annex. 20. The petitioners want to submit that the land in Khasra No. 231/1 stood allotted to the petitioner in lieu and in exchange of Khasra Nos. 396 and 397 and so far the lands in Khasra No. 394 are concerned, those were the property of the petitioners by way of grant by the Jagirdars and also by way of allotment by the Advisory Committee & by the S.D.O. and both the transactions have been held to be legal by the quasi-judicial pronouncements made whenever so challenged by the State. It is stated that even though the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of the more land in Khasra No. 394 but on measuring it was found that the actual possession was even less by 2 Biswas.

6. Prayer has been made for quashing the order Annex. 11 and any other proceedings started or contemplated to be started u/s 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in respect of Khasra No. 394 or in respect of Khasra No. 231/1 situated in the said village.

7. Reply has been filed by the State. The facts as stated are not denied in regard to the exchange of the land, i.e. in regard to the allotment of land in Khasra No. 231 and also in regard to allotment and the grant of land in Khasra No. 394. However, it is submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was holding land measuring about 100 Bigha, therefore, any regularisation of the land comparising in Khasra No. 394 was not in accordance with law. In regard to land in Khasra No. 231, 231/1, which was allotted in view of the land of Khasra No. 396 and 397 belonging to the ancestrals of the petitioners, it is submitted that there was no authority with the District Collector to have agreed to that exchange.

8. From the above pleadings and averments in regard to Khasra No. 231/1 and as per the documents placed on record, it is not disputed that the following facts stand established that :

(i) there was aschool owned by the anscestrals of the petitioners.

(ii) the land under the school and the building was donated by them to the government and the government had accepted the donation and deed was also executed and the school is still running.

(iii) abutting, the school and building and the said of the National High Way, there was a land comparised in Khasra No. 396 and 397 belonging to the petitioners through their ancestrals. Land in Khasra No. 396 and 397 was required by the School authorities for expanding the play ground of the school;

(iv) proposal was made by the Inspector of the School as far back as in August 1962;

(v) in the proposal it was also mentioned that the petitioners can be compensated by exchange of land from the Khasra No. 231 to the extent of 2 Bighas and 10 Biswas.

(vi) the site plans were prepared. Proposal was accorded vide Annex. 2 and 3 as far as back on 24th August 1962.

9. Vide Annex-4, the Tehsildar had asked the petitioners for carrying out the proposal as mooted and ultimately on 3rd June 1972, a final order by the Collector was made as reproduced at page 7 of the writ petition. Objections filed by the Panchayat were dismissed. For 13 years the parties abided by the execution of the exchange.

10. Without issuing any notice of show cause and without giving any reason and only because of the reason that some question had been asked in the Assembly and without going into the background of the case, the impugned order Annex. 11 was passed effecting the civil rights of the petitioners.

11. In regard to Khasra No. 394, the grant as well as allotment made by the Advisory Committee of the total area of 2 Bighas had been finally adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authorities and said possession by way of allotment etc. became final in favour of the petitioners. Despite the judicial orders having been passed against the State, in the present case, the State in my opinion in a most arbitrary manner had cancelled the earlier accomplished deed of exchange and held the petitioner as trespasser on the part of the land in Khasra No. 394 and 231. Admittedly no notice was issued and in the written statement it has been admitted by the State that there was hardly any necessity to issue any notice. It is the paramount principle that the rule of law with the State expects the Citizens to follow is to be followed by the State itself as well while affecting the civil rights of the Citizens which has been said a good-bye in this case.

12. Counsel for the respondents Mr. N.L. Pareek, states that even though no notice was required but if the Court is of the opinion that notice should have been issued, the matter can be remanded back.

13. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. For the reason that the rights of the parties stood established by the accomplished act of the parties amongst themselves and the State is estopped from going back and withdrawing the order of exchange or even by passing the orders passed by the judicial authorities in regard to Khasra Nos. 232 and 394. Apparently instead of seeing the reasons, the State has probably passed the order immediately on the starred question having been asked in the Assembly. The government has required that the steps be taken to get the possession vacated without ascertaining whether the possession of the petitioner was made by way of allotments by the State authorities itself. If the government had already made up its mind to get the possession vacated before passing the impugned order, it shall be futile to refer the matter back to the State to decide it on merits once again, for which mere is already pre-determination of mind. The State Government has already raised a plea in the written statement that the petitioners have no right in the land in question. The same authority which has earlier passed, the order shall be asked by the State to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order which shall be a futile exercise.

14. To my mind no fresh order can be passed so far Khasra No. 394 is concerned as the allotments made in favour of the petitioners and the rights of the petitioners had been finally adjudicated by the judicial authorities on the judicial appeal filed by the Stale. It is not open to the State to bye-pass the determination of the rights made by the judicial authorities by passing an order on the administrative side, similarly the situation in regard to exchange of land made in lieu of Khasra No. 396 and 397. In my opinion, the State should have been obliged to late Shri Kanhaiyalal who had donated the school building and the land under it to the State for running the school and also had agreed to the proposal made by the State authorities in Education Department for giving more land to the school in Khasra No. 396 and 397 and if on the proposals and suggestions made by the State authorities itself and after negotiatin

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

g for about 10 years, preparing the site plans and completing the demarcations, on the saying of the State itself, an exchange of land is made out of Khasra No. 231 measuring 2 Bigha and 10 Biswa, the State is totally estopped by his conduct to say that exchange was not in accordance with law. 15. In my opinion, the State was not acting fairly. Instead of being thankful to late Shri Kanhaiyalal and its successor who had donated the land under the school building and also agreeing for extension of the land, abutting the land with school for extension of the school, the respondent had not acted bona fide. The action of the State cannot be called a fair action and the petitioners have not been given a fair deal which could have been avoided had some application of mind been made by some competent persons. 16. It is the contention of Shri Mehta that as per 'Patwari Rojnamacha', the State has already taken the possession which is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. The stay was granted on 29th August 1986 and the possession seem to have been delivered on 2nd Sept. 1996 which could not have been delivered at all in view of the restrain order granted by this Court. Even otherwise the Stale action having been set aside and the impugned order being quashed, if the petitioners are in possession, they will remain in possession and in case some possession has been taken by the State or any authority of the State that shall be restored to them forthwith. 17. The writ petition is allowed. Order Annex. 11 is quashed being illegal. The petitioners shall be entitled to the cost of Rs. 5.000/-
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Montu Lal Das Gupta V/S The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Pratap Lal Teli Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Public Prosecutor, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2019 Hori Lal & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Gopi Lal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-10-2019 Roshan Lal Versus Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-09-2019 Rakesh Goel Versus Hira Lal ( Now Deceased) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
18-09-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshwar Lal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Anshuman Dubey & Another Versus Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Others High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar Versus Vidisha Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Ami Lal Versus Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur & Another High Court of Orissa
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Laxman Lal Latta Versus Kamlesh Parmar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Shiv Lal Versus Om Parkash Kashyap High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Bharat Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-08-2019 Dilip Kumar Mahesh Versus Sundar Lal Maurya High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-08-2019 Sunder Lal Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 Mewa Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-08-2019 Dhanpat Lal Sharma Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
08-08-2019 Hazari Lal Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services, Sirsa & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-08-2019 Nand Lal & Others Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
05-08-2019 Panna Lal Gaur & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-08-2019 Moti Lal Daga & Another Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 Basant Lal Memorial College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Others High Court of Delhi
29-07-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board Versus Roshan Lal Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
24-07-2019 Bhajan Lal & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni V/S Sohan Lal (D) thru L.R. and Others. Supreme Court of India
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni Versus Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr & Others Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Manik Lal Prasad Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Versus Kuladhipati, Vikram University & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
11-07-2019 Jagdish Lal & Others Versus Ram Chander & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-07-2019 Hiru & Others Versus Mansa Ram (deceased) through his LRs Chaman Lal & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-07-2019 Chhotey Lal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-07-2019 Raju Lal Das Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
01-07-2019 Atul Kumar Gupta & Others Versus Mitthan Lal Aggarwal & Others High Court of Delhi
11-06-2019 Galgotias University, Through Its Registrar, Uttar Pradesh Versus Malayala Manorama Company Ltd., Through Its Vice President (P/A), Lal John, Kottayam High Court of Kerala
07-06-2019 Mohan Lal Raina Versus Indu Raina & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
06-06-2019 Jai Kumar Gupta & Others Versus Bajrang Lal Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-06-2019 Chaman Lal & Others Versus Rakesh Nanda & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
30-05-2019 Gulzari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P High Court of Judicature at Allahabad