^' 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ^ Civil Revision N0.-——ll-'r——/2007 APPLICANT ^launant ^' Parvati Bai W/o late Shri Kholbahara @ Farwa Sahu Aged- about 26 years R/o - Bareli Thana- Bilaigarh, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^t^on-Applicants ,^ ^w^' ^ ^:'A o^ J^-/ ../^^' ^' 1. Shiv Shankar Panda S/o Goarago Panda Aged- about 65 years R/o Bahadur Tikaray Thana 85 Tahsil - Bargarh Through- Maharaja Transport, Distt.-Bargarh, [Orrissa ] ^2. Bhawani Shankar Sharma S/o Mansha Ram Sharma, R/o- Bargarh Thana 85 Distirict- Bargarh [Orrissa] ^3< Uni. 4 lne|"(9 Jnsuy^yiflA Co. 1+4- Bwinc.h^ Bcir^h, l»i5tt-&^^rhC:o^»&sei3 CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTIONS>115 OFTHEOFTHE CQDE OF CFVIL PROCEDURE •XI-HC-78 +11+1^11 Sh^lich 3^T ^II^Krl^, ^Tfl^JI(o, ^^1^^< /:/^^f.'.^/^^ ^ 200 ^ii^i ^^ch ((i^tti<s<^€r) 3TT^T^)T^i<=b cT^T3TT^T$h^i<=h t— ^R[TW^f?cT^n^T <=bi^?<n<41Ti ^i^<nT^:teI^t<(^^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T 13.02.2007 Applicant-Parvati Bai by Shrf Shiv Kumar Guha, Advocate. This Cwil Revisfon is beingldisposed of at the stage of admissfon without notice tQttie respondents. | The appticant is aggrieved by the tearned First Additional Raipur whereby the applicant's by an order dated 06.12.2006 passed Slaim Tribunal, Baloda Bazaar, Dist. »rfor disbursement of the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- deposited as comp^nsation lying in fixed deposit, for the purpose of construction of a housejwas turned down. Brief facte are that in clainti case No. 01/2(M33 vide award dated 15 04.2004 compensation of Rs.1 ,|88,000/- was awarded. Compensation of being paid was deposited in fii^ed deposit in ttie name of applicant- Parvathi for 5 yeare. The applicar|t moved an application stating that she was living witti her old motiier an|sl wanted to construct her own house, and therefore, was in need of the tifioney. ft was prayed that the amount deposited in fixed deposit be disbijrsed to the applicant. In support of the application, the applicant had fil^d an affidayit showing thsrt she had agreed to purchase lancl from one| Rameshwar who also filed an afRdavit in support of the applicant's veijsion and also fited other documents showing title over the agriculfairal] land. The learned M.A.C.T. taking a fer. Learned counsel for Ihe a^plicant submitted that the husband of the applicant had died in the a|ccident. Since the prayer was duly supported by the afRdavit of the afrplicant as also Rameshwar, there was nothing on record to show that thje prayer made by the applicant or th< need for the money was not gen^iine. In such matters the need of^the XI-HC-78 ^c[ ^l^ld<4, ^Tfl^^Ko, i^crll^y +11+1^1 Sh*1icr> ^ 200 ^ll^l M^l* (ll^t^<s<^) 3TI^T^Tf§pW cTSTT^TT3^T$h^lch 1—^ tfi^ ^<TTW^f?cf3TT^T ^- ^ chl^Tcrl41rl ^I^<^T ^ te^ <Ri<-^l< ^3Tf^T^n^T applicant shoutd be Hberally viewe|d and the compensation be disbursed jn appropriate cases. In this view of the matterj disburse the amQunt lying in fixed c(eposit to the applicant forthwth. Revision is allowed. the tearned M.A.C.T. is directed to fixed c(eposit to the applicant forthwth. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge fcr--