IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ..^^ W.P. (227)No.: /2008 PETITIONBR APPLICANT ^^4-^':ss^J ^-•;'»^ysy^s^-- ^•"^1""^-11-''3" ^•Khelendra Kumar ^Sahu, S/o Shri Tularam Sahu, aged about 41 years, Resid^nt of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ION APPLICANTS 'NOI .1°^^ [y—<^ ®tHA ^('^^fk1 iw^i ^G^ ^^ ^I§' ^ ^ 2), 31. Nohar Ram, S/o Shri Sevakram Sahu, aged about 40 years, Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) -Ramlal Dhruv vanshi, S/o Indralal Dhruv vanshi aged about 42 years,,,Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tafasil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Nirala Sahu, S/o Late Maniram Sahu, aged about 35 years, Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4j<'/Gaukaran, S/o Late f Ghasiram Sen, aged about 35 years, Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) §)<- Harihar Dani, S/o Late Dharamsingh Dani, aged about 45 years, Resident iof Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) | 6)^-'!yuvraj, S/ o Sukhrs aged about 37 ; Resident of Gram r asia \ ,-n Tahsil Kurud, Dhamtari (C.G.) Distt. ^ l^ ^. 7). Gend Dhar Dhruv, S/o Bisaru Dhruv, aged about 37 years, Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Ki-u-ud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 8). Dukalu Ram, S/o Mangalu •Rain S^iu, aged about 37 years, 'Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 9). Hemant Kumar, S/o Pankaj '' Sahu, aged about 42 years, . Resident of Gram Sagdehi, Tahsil Kumd, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 10)^ Gulab Singh, S/o Late y^ Bharat Sahu, aged about 65 years, Resident of Gram Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 11). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Dhamtari, (C.G.) 12) Upper Collector, Dhamatri, (C.G.) 13)../ Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur through its Chairman. PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARSOFTHEPETITIONER: As given above in the cause title. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS : As given above in the cause title. ^. !:ttffl "z3^£S2-.£i£A-.F- i'° HIGMS^iaRU%MBi^MSi^RNs Blli^l3tiH^ SiliWl^BenSK: Mffi8blisSWI^sii^Slaiia3giiSr !KUlEiilSRlVtiIlllKS WWl3gtiti(»f»2 lsi<Ssi8^iMlCIOfe Khelenidra Kumar Ssihu NohaFRamartclSothers PoStfbF ;6--rQ-2@1I Sd^-' , . prashantKumarMishra Judge ^. i HIGHGOURTQFGHHATTlSGARHjKTBII.ASRUR Sindle BenGh: Hon'ljleSliFi.UistiN^Fashant^K^ W/rit RititibR^ZtffiNlin.se^ZofZOOS Petitioner ResDOhdehts versus Khelendra KumarSahu Nohar Ram and others Present: . ':..T: ,: ..^:.' ,.,.•.'.;::::;:••• , ; . :., '; : .. Shri Asliisli S^irjvastava, Gounsel fbr the petitipner. Shri B.P,Sharring,,Goyilsel?fOrresR(:)ndei^slNlQ,t Shri Sanjeev^iSgrawal, Panel LEiwyeri for the Stat^/respendehts No.11and IZ.r.i.. ;•.';' .:•:;. '.. : ::l ,n. • : ^:.••,:•..:-^':-::: WritPetitibn undeFArti(;lei2276ftheCoiistil!utionoflndia ORDER (Passed onj^October^^^ i Presentjis a w/rit petitiQFpy^®FiN?icls2^6^^ of Indja seeking quaigMmerlt|^|^Rj(:)iJU?clat^'23-1©-ZQ(%pa^ecl by the Beard W^eyenue^|ex^ f3-9) as also for quasRmeni of the. pl^l^dil^ljj^^ tiysil^ondenfr Collectof, DhMtain and^he ;®rc|eripasse!dtherein on 6-6-2008 and 10-6-2008 (Annexure P-8) andalsgforquashing|theordgc|dafe(ffi4- 2-2008 (Annexure P-5) passed b^the'respondent No.13^the;Bc>ard ofRevenue."'.' : '.• ',^ .".;.' •' '~v,: : •: :;;,-i''^ li :i^. 2. Annexure P-5 is the 6i^er^ssecl| by Ihe Bbard ^ Circuit Court.f iRaipur g^jngH^ermission^^^^ to Dhamtari/Additional Co|leefoHglE)Ka[tltaro;fe^ke^ proeeeding againsthis ©rd©nd;ate^"3^-Sl20Q51bYwh ^ \^fT^nd beanng .Klhasi^|No;1;2^1^a^.4'a&iis|A|ras':|ilJ|tteCl^ le|is||:ta :i'i;)':'" ^ ^•- the petitioner. Ahnexure P-8 contsiins two orders dated 6-6-2008 and 10-G-2008 by which the petitioner's right of cross-examination has been closed sind his applieation for reealling of the said order tias been rejected. Annexure P-9 is the order passed bythe Board of-Revenue rejecting petitiorier's revisjon against the ohJers pass^d by the AdditionalColtector.Dhamtarjon 6-6-2008 and 10-6-2008. 3. The facts ofthe case, in short, are that the petjtjoner, being an Ex-Armyman, applied fbr grant of tease pf agrieultural land. The Naib-Tahsildar, g^akhaiajnvited oBjeGtjons and th®Naib-l'ahsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer i(Revenue), Ohamtari recommended the petitioFier'sapplicaitiQn. TheAdditional eEollector, DhamtaritheFeafterpassedtheordei'on 31-5-2005 grantingleaseof thesubjeetlandtbthepetitiongrasalsoseparatingthesubjectlarvj from Nistar Patrafc yndersub-seGtions (2) and (3) ofSection 237 of the Chhattisgartt 1-and Revenue Cocie, 1959 .(Henceforth 'th^ RevenueCode'). 4. The villag^Ahereaften l'no<^|anlJa^liGatre 1-2008 on the groynd that in the^arlier prQeeeding|a fraudulent and eoncocted resolution of Gram SabKa has been relied iri favoyr oftHSi petitioner and 4 acres of Government Nistanlland has been^ allott^d to the petitionerlon whicti the villagiera are exereising tKeirTNistan^ right. The BoardofRevenue,yideitsoi-derdated4-2-20Q8,grant^ permissiontothe|AdditiQnaiColle(^RDhamtarif6rtakingupthe^ motu review proceeding antf thereafter the petitidner AA/a| participating in the said^revievv j^ t\ petitioner preferred a eivil^gi.ii^iforl sgeking a decreei of pepmanent llii jai .^ ~ili&,a.,i %^' ^^ssss, '^, IJ L, ^i: fW n s'.i \m % •\ \^.\ • • injunctjpn against respcniclents No.1 td lO/vjllagers^^ the State Oovernment. lliABe sajd suit, a restrajn ortler was passec) byllTidCivitJudge;eiass-rs©ha(niarioB4-3-2008. ::5.': ;/'T|TS;.,'revi^i^r(3Gi||iB^s|tislWi1^^ Dliamtari was fixecjlfor F§c^in|g;eKttlfini?i|^|fheappMeante th^ riamely, the Gram Rariiehayat leigcleRi ^nd ther^^^ Chhattisgarh. On 27-5-20Q8, thecoyBselforthep^^ present and the Court was kept waiting from 12 Nooh to 2 R.IVI. and thereafter tliei AddiSbnal ©ollectorproeeeded to examine Sarpanchl Pilabai, Up-SarpanGh Gajncldhar Dhiiiiw and Pancl'ilil-lariram^ Tlie matterwasthereafterfixeaift:ir 6-6-2008 eindthe-'orel^r-sneet of the; said date records that the rnatter WEIS icalled i?n thrice, firstly at 4 P.IVI.,seeondlyat4:30R<M.andthir^ly;^§R.M.,hC)wever,^^^ Occasions, the petitipherOThis.coiiHsei^ctict;i|i^ was' again ,catled',|,on'^ .5;3Qn^^i:g^ari<:li|!^ij@e,;iagai ^nSitli^.ttlTe;] petjtioner;noRsNS^ui5^M^ ;iexamine1tBi|jn|ng||||ji^t|[g|||F|j^|^e||^)|ed:|&^ .;.^fflKS.S®'S:^lWRWi'.i': f: ^'.:;: ::;';-;'. •; : ^S:': ^ eolle^GiF'v^s^lQ^ft^QBl^Q-^IfigSK^tljiei^ application ynder S^ion 32;ofitl'ietj?evenye!Co^eW order dated 6-6-2R08. The- alpliEgtiOBi^'^^ Additional Cbllectoi-, l These @Fdeps;|SMgrg»:cHallerigied befcii^e| 11-ig Boardc>fRevenue^way;QfF^isi|r||iy|h@JiBaril^ orderdated 23-10^008 (Ar exBi|gy|f^,^i^ preferredby'tBe^petitjoner.. '^^..^•r.^^.u^^,: ^...^•^^ .• i ;. ^:,:<;:|.l'A.;i' 6. Shn AsBisbi^fctnvas1^a^;le|ap^Sio||^ petitioner \royld sul^ifrtlaaf^heH%&||^it;f|gn|inj^ liso, ;lal Sii' ws vsm^ laiiii :Sl^'t:-]S'! 's.i.-'sv.^^.^.a,.. •y.'S^'&Sgv^ri '^ U ] before civi) Court, ttie Board of Reveriue stiould not have granted peiTnissian totheAdditjonal Golleetor, DHamtari to reviewthe order dated 31-5^0()5. He would sUbmit t^ Qranting permi^sion fbr Feview|rasseel;BytBe®oardofR^venUe as weH asthe tB\ne^pFoceedingyo^Mer:witH^beoit|ieF]ras^d^B^ Additiohal^Collector on @-6-2C)08 elosing riglTt of the petitioner t6 cross-examine the witnessesasalsotheorderdated 10-6-2008 refusing to set eiside tlie orderdated 6-6-2008 are bad in lavtf. LeamedGCunsel Swould Sybmifr that^e review ptetitiori tiavmg no^^^^ been submittedwi|hjn90days,asreqyil'edunderprovis6(ijj)tosul3- section (1) of Section 51 of the Rexenue Gode, is not maintainaBle andthustheentireproceectingdeservestobequashed. 7. Per GOntra, Shri B.P.Sharrna, learned counsel appe'arifig ^fOF respondents No.1 to 10 as well as ShR?Sarueev Agrawral,^ ^ Panel Lawyerappearing fbr the State^respondents No.1^ ^ would submit thaf the preseni is^a ^ Gove^rnerrE^aridiiBasib'e^iQbtaiB^^Rla^tff^frau permissiofff^Fewj^liias^riglTtl^bi^l^raNteaan^Bat^^ is m seisin ofthere^teF;aN41rer€!|l3eingriojyrisdicAiQna exereise of juriscliation, tHisr petitjon: uilclSr Article 227 of tReu Constitution of tndia is npt mairrtaiFiable. ^ Aecsording to liearned|; coun9el forrespohdents No.1 to1Q, rloobjeetjon eertificate from tl^ Gram PanGHayatBagdehiwasnotobtained^arKJthe'resb Gram Panchayat was foFgecl/ TOe allegstio examined bylthe reronue GoHrt^anEl^tib^tRiSQc^iitund^^ 227 of the ©ohstitMon6f;1naia.^W&;^Ulci fyrfhersyti^ ^ M 'w a j :ll ;i.^& "si' ';-A ""^, •\\.. •^:.'^ ? ~*u ss^"'' :f->.. l.is.i' ~<B' •@ petitioner has notapproaGhed the Coyrtwith elean hands and that the civil suit was filed immediately^when the Board Qf Reveriue granted permissionforsrevi^.Aceorajrig^ civil suit is for giant of FieimanentiiSgHnetionandthe^^^^v^ allotment and whetlie^pr;not ^grG)und ;ifQi' j'gvjea/ ^exjsts ^are not the subject matter in tHScivil suit. rff 8. On perusal ofthe record, it would appear that in its meetjng dated 28-3^003, theGramPanehayatBagdehihaspasseda resolution ol^eeting to tt^grantoflease^ofthesubjeetlan^ ground that the lahd is Nistari lahct for grazing of cattle. In another •i i- • -,.'•• ". meeting dated 28-4-2004^similar resolutioh was psissed and jt was also resolved that copy of theresoiytiQn be sent to the coneemed department of the Goyemment. In another meeting of ttie Granfi Panchayatheldon 24-6-2006, itlwasunanimoysiyresolveditHatlhje Gram Panchayat is not agreed for Qrant 6f lease to^^ and the earlier r^olution of 11-ig ©I^ITIf^nGBayat in this regard aiTe | appFO\®d.t:?^imflar^iie^|uti@^|ji|^ija|gijragpas||e^;!on^^^^^ wherein it wasjlnentigned ^liali^jing'U'ie Isirea^ljiHg yndeij ©rarni Panchayat Bagdehi tKe total^nui!r>ber©f;eattleare4000 jand ttli^ suBject land is i^quired fpr grazingiCrf gattle.l M r^ferred above^ have been iaBin^xedi yvtfith thie retum^^^^^^^ respondents No.j1rto.IO. •;.: ' :.:';-,.i^ •:;;•.:',;.•' -1 i. 1::-;\,::1 ;.,^::,'.('.jli'; 9.' In the order passedv by ffie iBoardlof Be&enye on r4-2-2^ (Annexure P-5), it is mentioned|st|Tat?^eJNajb.^ahsH has submitted aFreport to thelG^lte(rtpF,j.EIh8ri|tari|jtHaft^ village is aggrieved ^ricl^ anijioyed Ibe^ayse eft ^rant ofi |ease |of •J.-iiil^l ;;lli;llfe i:f^l;ii' IIJII 'iWk .IIDHIIJt 111H llllll :JI!!1 •'i ^,^s ':i.:i: "i^^i' M'lir.^ "'t^!u?t': f^;l-*t»*" l<. ^; fe ^ Nistari/grazing land tothe petitiQnerand lawand Ordersittjation may arise. It is also mentioneci Ihat the Additional Gollector has reGommended and reqy6sted seeking permission to take up the matter in wo rooto revision^ A^ circumstanees ^ tKe c;ase,,^the ® permissioh tothe:AdditiorialC611ect0r,Ohamtaritotakeups^^ review proceeding. Whether or not the fraud has been played while obtaining lease of the grazing land^is an jssue pending befbre the Additional Colleefor, DMamtari, however, jn view ofthe yoeuments annexed with thelreturn, it woHld, at least, prinia /ac/e appear tiat if the documents have correctly reicprded the proGeedings of the Gram Panchayat,apmnafe(wcasefor!reviewofthe;ear1ierbrderisn^ out and the Board of Revenue has not GOmmitted any eFror while ^ttle&SHBjget^larii:! '^ f|i|e granting permjssion to review th^iAdyitiGinal Cy^^ order dated^31-i5-^Q8®igfar(tingl|leSSe petitioner. ••'„'!'i::';'' •-,.: ::Y •;';;.':!r:''71: 10. ln&P.GhSngaiyarayaNaidu(Dead)byL^.vs.Jagannatl'i (Dead) by LRs. and others, |(1994) 1 S<?e 1 and IFT Household and Healthcare Ltd. HeaItheareLtd.,(2p07)5SCC510,the held that an ordeF obtained by playjng and non estin the eye of lavv. Sjmilar Hon'ble SupremeiCourt iri Noi-tHi Gorakhpurvs, BMagwanDasl(l@^acl) ll-lon'bleSupFemeiSourt frailici on the Gourt is vs. LG HouSehold is tne law'laid down by i|Railvray4Adminjstfati^i|i |-Rs^(2Q08)aS<Se5l1| CTffio'St^^M sess8tle3(®ii,S;'ia;J.tt<fc.iH-KiiSiiaSB3B :•';$•• F: •-•^s^,:^:^ :^ ^2"y '•'•<a-a»!SS" liiii t \'M^- 7 ' -; • ' • ;: ' : : ' .'...••j1.— 11.lnS,P.ChengalvarayaNaidu^Deacl)byLRs.Vs.Jagannath (Dead) byLRs.and others(supra),^heHoh'bleSuprem&Courthas observedinpaFagraph 1 ofthereportthus: ' "1. "Fraud avoicls all judicial acts, ecclesiastical 6r temporal" observe9 Chief Justiee E^ England about three centunes agp. It is the settled proposition oflaw ftiat ajydgment or depree obtained by playing fraud 6n the court js a hullity and non est in the eyes of law.| Sueh a judgment/decree—by the firstGOUrt or by the liighest court— has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether siyperioir or linfenor. It can be challenged jn any^courteye^in collateral pnGiceedings.'' 12. Relying on and clrawing suppoi't from ttre saJdJobservation,this Court would hold that the permissiprr granted by the Bpard pf RevenuetotheAdditionalColleRtor.DhamtarifbFihitiatingsHp^ reviewproc^dingisnptbarredtbylawori&:n^inoixlinate|y^y The argument rajsed by learned; counsel for itKej petitioner to^ t|e effed thatithe revjewis barred ynder^thetKird RrQvisotOsuS'Sg^o'n (1) of Sedion 51|jofthe Reven^e|je%de|has;n6;substanee^b the said provisiQFi ap^lieswheftilt^eiQridleFuncl question of right between priyateipersons, wliereas in the ;pres^i|it; case, the sut3Jecf|landwasGovemmentlandrecQrdedintheNtst|i' Patrak as grazing land availablg; to the ientire^village. l Thus, ttjtei present is not a case between^wo pnvate pecSons. I i 13. Petitioner's plea for tiuashmenf of, the entire ^ revie|w i:i.s..L.y'.,li{!! proceecfing can also not.b&allp^cfi Becaugeiorice iit fs fourt^thSj jt^e; subordmate Coyrts or^ autb^ •l:.'?.:!<'i'i!.:!li;:P conferred on thern under tlli^ jRtevenug Godel ^d they s^ '•^'[i~. w :ill •i3iit :;ll^ l' }^i :j!SS !|1;: Itii:. -•sS^SP, BUU :";"'-'s.^^^^^^^^.'': ">ip ^; KS! 8 : ^ .' theirjurisdictiontp jnitiatesueh proceeding,awritofcertiorariGanhot be issued, In Surya Dev Ral vs. Ram Chander Rai and otHers, (2003)6SCC675,theHon'bleSypremeCourthas held thata writ bfeertiorari is issyed for correcting gross errors ofjurisdiGtion, i.e., when a suborclinate Gourt is found to have acted (i) witHout jurisdiction-byassymii'igjurisdictionwherethereexistsnsne,6r(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction—by oversteppirig or crossing the limifs of jurisdiction, or (iii) acfing in flagraht'disregardof law or the ryles of procedure or at^ing in violation ofprmciRles of riaturaljustice where there is no prbcSdure speGified, and th^reby OGcasioning faili.lre.of justice. Ithasfurfher been held that be it a writ bfcertiorari^or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiGtion, none is ayailablp to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the faceoftheproceedingsand;agraveinjusticeorgross1:ai|ureiof justice has oecasioned thereby. It has also been observgd by ithe Hon'ble Supreme Court that the power to issue! a writ ofle^rtiGii'ari and the supervisory jurisdictioh are to be exercisecl?^paringly iarld only in appittRi'j^te cases\^e^stlTeijiuBti|yal^^^c^^ Couri:di<aatesit|:oa(^lestagro^ should oGcasiohl and that wKilejexerdsirig thejurisdiction|theil-figh Court will not cdnvert itself into a Goyct of appeal and jnclHlge reappreGiatiori OFevaluation o^^idgh^or^QrFeeterrors^rj^^d inferencesoreorTecterrbrsofTBgi'Sfbrmalorteeftnicaleharacter.l 14. If the ease in hand is examinedi within the ifbur corriers offflhe in law laid flown by^he HQn'blefSupreme Ram Chahderi Rai ancllotFieisKsj.ipra), ©6urtii Sui'yaDgvRaij<re. :s l'. •:• iit4sitei;be;h6tice<:lthatj<hie :^.V.~.-. :nh m l.:i: K'w'f lllllll^ HIIBJB1!., v^';iiH^;; !i:f';t.!l:!l^;' i;|^|Jt)^|^|g|jO'SLnji6ui||^^|3J.|J|^^||gtt1^|LH^(aJj% M3(a|:u0|94| )su& lss^^uliw::s|t|i|9|jj|yci>^-Sgdj3^pt;'ty6 |6!dijs8|3^^oiZ-9^;"o-ye!U.^@ 1)0}^ :^i.!J'';^^';:ffJ':i::''l.^;-i?;--;'.:?^M;.5 ^^|jo^8t|^^.^p9WOj|ej.A|y^|:Sti,yQ8!^ ·9^ f^S§9UU al1):syi BXS^O|OOtAit!B Odd09UO^^S^ 3% 'aoi^nrjo spue^t|^y|i ^sssaHiim ,siyB3i|dde a^io stusus^^ L^a^oj^QOLm jo^ ^seq ; ayi yoy^ ABLU j|i|uo;s^Ape uese 30i}8ni|piatn||^j@jSBaoo p|n6M SUJBS SL|} pue s^Sssuiiwstft 8y!tU)|X3-sS0||3ji|)}||tiG|||i^!i^| Siqe.iSsGls.yjyQyns ||eL(S :^a|iiO!^!^|aMt^::'@M!B^|°J|B^l!llMM®li^::A!:y0^^^^ siij^ AqrlpisuiLuexa |ss^9ai!^?|j3H^^^^^ Ot .isuoiiiied ^itlioi AtjuniJocldo;Be geiuejB^^^^^^ ^s^|||^^ao^8||Qg|euo!l!Rp^l3qt'^nQ;3S!yljouojy!d03y^y|'gooz -9~OK''9t!'fiy!Jeaiii|joa}ep;p(8US!yiH&^|9iB!p3^ ^qi By!||e8aj JQI uoiieoiidde; ue; 'j0}39||6o leuoiiippv SLII Aq pssop sert s3ss9U}!M siiTl-suiuexs^ius^oijiySi^siti uSL|» pue psuiuexe 9J9te S8S69Ul!M SlltJO 3U.IOS U91.1M800Z-9-9 U0 }L13S9jd UIBUU9J IOU Ipin^ s^ ^o^9|joo;l%0!l!l w 84t sjo^q Bu^^ ayi u! Bijiijedioitjeauseqsey.jsjyoiiiietf sytiei.Il psiBiosjdde eq 0} si}! 'gOOZ -9-01. pue80QZ-9-9P3iep sjap.jo SL|I 01 86u8||et|oSe JEIOSU| •g). r)'::r:?Ki~~'''r::l:^^'^^W6'spe^ 3i|ti?fiy!^senb|JO{^BQ^ ?^t|®^ d iBu!>iei9|iy ^yoi!^|::^HnR^^:Hm|ifui^|^ ayi ^BOQ^rraSftsy 8y^(3isiii^ift®j^^ a^ o} yojssiyj^d^ p3^^^ ^t] .snuaAS qoillM JQi^ipgQSo^^iAsieJitUQsq^o^uatuysenb^^B l'!l: i.l\ ^ ~'v> ff- ^A '^•^'."::^\ ^^J ".."< ir«-'iiNmliiriiNiir"!^ ^Gopal ^ 10 . 6-2008 as also the revisional orcler passed by the Board of Revenue on 23-10-2008 are set asicle. The Aaclitional Colleetor shall now proceed vwth the review pRX^edjng ^ suhlrnQning ^he^^ already examiBed, for;ffieiF^Fqss^^niination by thepe^^^ thereaftertopreceedinaccor^anGei^ law:|^ ofthereviewproGeedingjsrejisctey.Paftiesto^ Sd/l- prashaHtKumarMishra Judge »i i ;1i!