IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. ?-S^ /2003 APPLICANTS / Mobarak Ansari, son of Shri Karman Ansari, aged about 65 years, 2) Smt. Bano Bibi, wife of Shri Mobarak Ansari, aged about 55 years. ^ -^ ^3) ^:^' ^?' /%^ y ^y 19\^ s^ --> ^ Jumman Ansari, son of Shri Nanka alias Ali Hasan, aged about 1 year and 6 months. Sl.No. 3 (Minor), through his natural guardian father - Applicant No.l. All are Musalman by caste and residence of village - Rajakatel, police station Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS -^' BfiSPONDENTS 1) Manoj Kumar Agrawal, son of Shri Mahaveer Agrawal, resident of village- Juna Lakhanpur, Near Bus Stand Lakhanpur, P.S. Lakhanpur, Tah. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 2) United India Insurance Company Limited, Behind Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). r°~i; 0( ^ ,..a|ty ddJ 1I sj ^ ^l <D ^' 04) ffl XI-HC-22 ~S^( ^NKTI^, ^nl^Ko, ^cni^iy NiH<ytl ^b^jcb 3:ni3?r ''^^? _c..^.:i^M^J> "WI, 200 (el^^ ^T^T'SFT f<Tii<=h 3^?T 5b^i<sb <i(^a ^T^T '^TTW ^rf^T <^i^i<n<flrt 1RTR^ff ^ 'fe^ iFai^K i:r3?rf^w3n^T .^. - ,1 \ \^^ 5/Z/2QQ3 Shri Sushil Dubey fojr the applicaiits. Shri Prashant Jayas^al for non-applicaiit no.2. Heai'd. Leamed counsel fd appUcant no. 1 has died. applicant no, 1 froni thc ^ application for the purpo^ r the applicants submits that He waats to delete the nanie of Lrray of parties. He has filcd an |e. The application is not opposed. It is allowed. The name ofjapplicant no. 1 be deleted from the array ofparties. Learned counsel for] amount of award has beenl in flxed dcposit by the Ih^ the impugiied award. He liability aaiount was not t| also subinits that applicanj the applicants subinits that the deposited in the Nationalized Bank uraiicc Conipartyy as dii'ected vide Farther submits that even no fault een paid and it w-as deposited. He t no. 2, who is natural guai'dian of applicant n6.3 (uiinor), w4iits to purchase agricultural laitd for hun and for that pui'po se she had a talk with persons aiid [-q^^^ k XI-HC-22 ^^f ^i^i<n^, ^Ti1^4i<o, fN^iT?ry ^^.'s^^ 'fN^sT' ^TT^T^T f<^[<=h ^TI^T s^*ii<=?i ^f^a 3?n^T'^<TT^R'Hfi^T ^ chi^{<n<ilt TITR^Tf ^ 'fe^t <f^i^i< ^^rf^ww^T •L. L t.he negotiations are goin; sum ofRs.1,00,000/-. A of the araount. He als< ^ on for piirch^ixSingthe land for the pplicant no. 2 prays for withdrawal ^ subraits that for that purpose, applicant iio. 2 is rcady a^id willing to subiiiit thc agi'ceiiient/ document of sale. Leamed counsel re Court in the case of G€ lied upon the judgment of the Apex neral Manager, Kerala State Rgad Transport Corporation fs, Susainina Thomas and others rcportcd in 1994 ACJ 1 , Clau^e (ii) of pai'a relevant, which reads as cspccially para 17 of thc judgnicnt, 17 of llie aforesaid judgiueiit is tinder : 1^.-..-. <<17.(ii)Intliec also, the Clain: the procedure lump sum p^ effecting purcl^ immovable agricultural etc., to earn a consider such sure that the for the purpos] a rogue to witl) ^se ofiUiterate claimaiits ls Tribunal should follow ^et outin (i) above, butif ^.yment is required for liases of anv movable and tproperty, such as, linplenients^ /rickshaw, |living, the Tribunal may a request after maldng ^inount is actually spent ^. and the demand is not lidraw nionev.?? [^^3^ XI-HC-22 '3~^r ^ji^w^, ^T{l^^!(o,1^Tr?Ty 1E?3ra? W-Ml ^^i<^.C'lAZi^ 200 •^^T' 3?TT^T^T r^i^ ^TT^I $h^i<^ ^[^a cbi^t<n<Ilri <4i^<n<f'^ Fs^i iP^^K ^'yrf^HSTT^T ^. \^ Learned counsel fu|i'ther relied upon the judgment of ILllaben Udeslng Gohel vs. Oriental Apex Court in the case o^ Insuraiice Co. Ltd. and lothers reported m 1996 ACJ 673. especiatly para 17 ofthe Relevant portion of j|udguient. j^ara 17 of the aforesaid judginent is quoted below : puijpose "The very guidelines wa^ the amount bccoiuc and Linethic41 We do hope 4^1 claimants frcjm wUl be equalty S|3 victiitis of laying down the to ensure the safety of that the claimants do not of Linscrupulous pcrsons agreements or arrangement. T aiudety lo protect the 1 exploitation by such eleinents shared by the coiirts/Tribunals." Having con^idcrcd |fclic facj;s and cii'cunistanccs of thc case and material on r^cord and in view of the aforesald judgments, it is directedjthat aii amount of Rs.50,000-/- be allowed to be withdrawn lj)y the applicmit no. 2 f6r purchasing the land for applicant no 3 and the reqiiired balance ainount [Tft^ ^fil^ XI-HC-22 ^sr ^i^Kn^, ^Til^^ico, t^irey 3?TT^T^T ^i^b s^\ 5f)^i^ ^fi^T ^w y^ 3T?t^T 'q^? ^i^i-mr^w^^L^l^J.^ T^ Wl 200 'I^^T' ^TT^T ^Rff^R ^f^T -2') may be allowed to be ^ithdmwn only aft.Rr siibniitting t.he agreeraent/docunient^e^sote^ With the aforesai^ disposcd of. Consequently, I.A| stands disposed of. <^i^t<n<iit 'HPT^f^ ^Q ^R?R ^ 3?rf^H a?n^r observations, this revision stands No.4162/03 for urgent hearlng Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge