Himachal Pradesh High Court
Geeta Devi And Others vs State Of H.P. And Another on 23 March, 2016
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No. 44 of 2009 alongwith .
RFA No. 181 of 2009 Reserved on: 17.3.2016 Decided on: 23.3.2016 ______________________________________________________ RFA No. 44 of 2009 of Geeta Devi and others. ...Appellants.
Versus State of H.P. and another. ...Respondents rt RFA No. 181 of 2009 State of H.P. and another ...Appellants.
Versus Geeta Devi and others. ...Respondents.
______________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for appellants in RFA No.44/2009 and for respondents in RFA No.181/2009.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. for respondents in RFA No.44/2009 and for appellants in RFA No. 181/2009.
____________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 2 Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, the same were taken up together for .
hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. RFA No. 44 of 2009 has been instituted against the land reference No.19-S/4 of 2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla on 6.12.2008 whereby the of appellants were held entitled to enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,32,416/- per bigha (752 rt square meters) alongwith all the statutory benefits.
present appeal has been filed for enhancement of amount The of compensation. The State has also come in appeal against the land reference No.19-S/4 of 2005 dated 6.12.2008 for setting aside the award.
3. The Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) to acquire the land of the claimants on 18.11.2003. The report under section 5-A(2) of the Act was sent to the Government on 7.4.2004. The notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.6.2004. The notification under section 9 (1) of the Act was issued to the claimants and they were directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.8.2004 at 11.00 A.M. The Land Acquisition ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 3 Collector assessed the value of the claimants' land @ Rs.
80,000/- per bigha. The claimants filed a petition under .
section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation of their land before the learned District Judge. The reference petition was allowed by the District Judge on 6.12.2008 and he assessed the market value of of the land @ Rs. 5,32,416/- per bigha (752 square meters) alongwith statutory benefits.
4.
rt
Mr. Rahul, learned vice counsel
appellants, has vehemently argued that his clients were for the entitled to compensation @ Rs. 10,64,832/- alongwith statutory benefits.
5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the claimants' land @ Rs. 80,000/- per bigha.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award and record carefully.
7. The notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 18.11.2004. PW-1 Geeta Devi has proved copy of award Ex.PW-1/A vide which the market value of the acquired land has been assessed @ Rs. 80,000/- per bigha in consequence of notification under section 4 of the Act ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 4 dated 18.11.2003. She testified that the acquired land was in the form of an orchard having two walnut and three .
Khurmani plants. She also deposed that the land was in the shape of fields and being used as agricultural land from where claimants were getting an income of Rs. 8000- 9000 per annum. The acquired land was situated at a of distance of five minutes walk from Sanjauli Chowk by the side of path. The mettled road was in existence on which rt jeeps were being plied. The acquired land was near to Middle School and veterinary hospital. The land fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Street lights were also provided in the acquired land. The land was located between the revenue estate Sanjauli Chowk and Chalaunti. They were paying house tax to the Tax Collector. Thus, the market value was wrongly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The market value of the land should have been assessed as per the prevailing market value of Sanjauli Chowk.
8. PW-2 Smt. Bindu Mehta deposed that she was the general power of attorney of her father. She sold the land under sale deed Ex.PW-2/A for consideration of Rs.
1,57,000/- on 15.1.2003 in favour of Parkash Chand resident of village Mandhol. This land situated near ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 5 Gurdwara of Sanjauli Chowk. The land was situated at ten minutes walk towards Engineghar on the path from .
Sanjauli Chowk. The buildings were in existence where the land was sold.
9. According to sale deed Ex.PW-2/A, the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 297/344, Khasra Nos.
of 1037 and 1038 kitas 2 measuring 110.90 square meters situated at Mauja Up-Mahal Sanjauli Chowk, Tehsil and District rt Shimla was sold for consideration 1,57,000/-. The claimants have placed on record sale deed of Rs.
Ex.PW-1/D dated 7.11.2003 whereby Ram Chand has sold land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.99/113, Khasra No.1208 measuring 161.60 square meters "Jai Safed"
situated at Mauja Sanjauli Chowk, Tehsil and District Shimla for sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- in favour of Sh. Mukesh Thakur.
10. PW-3 Saran Dass Rohit was Patwari Patwar Circle, Sanjauli. He has proved in his evidence average value of the land with effect from 18.11.2002 to 17.11.2003 of Up Mahal Sanjauli Chowk Ex.PW-3/A. He has deposed that Chak Chalaunti was adjoining to Chak Sanjauli Chowk and it takes only 5-7 minutes to reach Chalaunti from Sanjauli Chowk.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 611. Suraj Bhimta, Patwari has appeared as RW-1.
He has proved copy of one year average value Ex.RW-1/A .
with effect from 18.11.2002 to 17.11.2003 of Mahal Lambidhar. According to him, the value of land in Mahal Lambidhar was Rs. 18,38,577/- per bigha of the kind of orchard and Bakhal Awal, Rs. 12,48,843/- of Bakhal Doam of and Rs. 1,56,100/- of Ghasani. He has proved Khaka Dasti (location map) Ex.RW-1/B.
12. It rt is evident from Ex. RW-1/B boundaries of Sanjauli revenue estate and Tilla adjoin to that the the boundaries of village Chalaunti. The boundaries of revenue village Lambidhar do not adjoin to the boundaries of revenue village Chalaunti and village Tilla fell between the boundaries of two villages. There is no reason assigned why the State has opted to obtain one year average of village Lambidhar instead of revenue village Sanjauli Chowk since the boundaries of revenue estate Sanjauli Chowk adjoin to village Chalaunti. The acquired land fell in village Chalaunti. Respondents have not placed on record any sale deed. RW-1 Suraj Bhimta has specifically admitted that during the period 18.11.2002 to 18.11.2003, no land was purchased or sold in Mahal Tilla. He has further admitted that revenue village Chalaunti adjoins ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 7 Sanjauli Chowk. He has also admitted that the market value of Chalaunti Chak is higher than the value of the .
land situated in revenue village Lambidhar. PW-3 Saran Dass Rohit, Patwari Patwar Circle Sanjauli has deposed that it takes only 5-7 minutes to reach Chalaunti from Sanjauli Chowk. According to one year average value of of the land w.e.f. 18.11.2002 to 17.11.2003 of Mahal Sanjauli Chowk Ex.PW-3/A, the market value of Kalahu Awal has rt been shown Rs. 7,444.52 per square meters, of Lahedi Awal Rs. 5,533.98 per square meters, of Lahedi Doam Rs.
3,689.32 per square meters and Banjar Kadim and Ghasani at Rs. 1,317.62 per square meters. Ex.PW-1/A has been prepared on the basis of various sale deeds, which took place between 18.11.2002 to 17.11.2003. The reference court has rightly discarded Ex.PW-1/D dated 7.11.2003. It was executed only ten days after the notification under section 4 of the Act. It was speculative deed. Moreover, neither the vendor nor vendee of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/D has been examined nor any evidence has been led in order to prove that the sale consideration shown in sale deed Ex.PW-1/D actually passed or not or whether the sale deed was a bona fide transaction.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 813. According to sale deed Ex.PW-2/A, the land was sold for consideration of Rs. 1,57,000/-. PW-2 Smt. Bindu .
Mehta is an independent witness. The sale deed Ex.PW-
2/A is dated 15.1.2003, i.e. 10 months prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act. The sale deed was made within one year of the notification under section 4 of of the Act, i.e. 18.11.2003.
14. The learned reference court has made 50% rt deductions towards development charges. According to the reference court, at the time of notification, land was located on the side of the road. It was 10 minutes walk from Sanjauli Chowk. The nature of the land sold was "Jai Safed". It could be used for construction of a house.
However, major portion of the acquired land was in the shape of sloppy land and Ghasani in nature. The land sold vide sale deed Ex.PW-2/A was in close proximity of the road. Fact of the matter is that land was acquired for the construction of the road. It was not required to be developed for the purpose of construction of road. The development is required where the land is acquired for the purpose of housing colony and allied matters. Thus, the reference court has erred in law by making 50% deductions towards development charges. Since the land acquired was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 9 for the construction of road, the classification of land was irrelevant. However, considering the smallness of the plot .
sold vide sale deed Ex.PW-2/A, the deductions of 15% is permissible and, as such, the value of per bigha land would be Rs. 10,64,832-15%, i.e. Rs.10,64,832- Rs.1,59,725 = Rs. 9,05,107/-.
of
15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaji Kuriakose and another versus Indian Oil rt Corporation Limited and others, (2001) 7 SCC 650 have laid down the following factors for determination of market value of acquired land inter alia:
1) The sale must be a genuine transaction;
2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,
3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,
4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and
5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.
Their Lordships have held as under:
[3] It is no doubt true that Courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valution of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 10 Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which .
a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land of reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale-deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered rt by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale vlaue of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. In the present case, what we find is that the first two factors are satisfied. The sale transaction covered by the sale Ex. A-4 is genuine, inasmuch as sale was executed in proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, there is a difference in the similarity in the land acquired and the land covered by Ex.A-4. The land covered by Ex. A-4 is situated at Kottayam and Ernakulam, PWD Road, whereas the acquired land is situated at a distance of 3 furlong from the main road. There is no access to the acquired land and there exists only an internal mud road which belonged to one of the claimants, whose land has also been acquired. Further, the land coverd by Ex.A-4 is a dry land and whereas the acquired land is a wet land. After acquisition, the acquired land has to be re-claimed and a lot of amount would be spent for filling the land. Moreover, the land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 11 covered by Ex.A-4 relates to a small piece of land which do not reflect the true market value of the acquired land. If it is often seen that a sale for a smaller plot of land fetches more .
consideration than larger or bigger piece of land. For all these reasons, the High Court was fully justified in lowering the rate of compensation than what was the market value of the land covered by Ex.A-4.We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court."
16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 have culled out the rt following principles to determine the market value of the acquired land:
[18] One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefore. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
[21] Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."
17. Learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Commissioner vs. Vyjanath (deceased by LRs), 2006 (1) AIR Kar R 691 has held that no deduction towards civic ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 12 amenities is permissible. Deduction towards civic amenities is only in case where land is acquired for .
housing purpose.
18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes and others vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 of SCC 447 have held that where the land acquired is for laying railway line, question of development of the land rt would not arise. Their Lordships have further held that the purpose for which land acquired is relevant for deciding whether deduction by way of development charges required or not. Their Lordships have held as under:
[25] Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. In this context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in JT 2005 (4) SC 282. This Court held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. In the above case, the lands were acquired because they were submerged under water of a dam. Owners claimed compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. LAO awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. Reference Court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. and after deduction of development charges, determined the compensation @ Rs. 134/- per sq. mtr. In arriving at the compensation, Reference court placed reliance on the comparative sale of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 13 metre @ Rs. 270 per sq. mtr. On appeal, the High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. in respect of large plots and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. in respect of smaller plots. On further .
appeal, this Court held that since the lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam and had no potential value and the sale instance relied was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq. mtr. whereas the acquisition in the present case was in respect of large area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding compensation of Rs. 160/- per sq. mtr. in respect of larger plots and Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. for smaller plots. In Basavva (Smt.) and of Ors. Vs. Spl. LAO and Ors. reported in JT 1996 5 SC 580, this Court held that the purpose by which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value.
30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that rt normally 1/3 deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 14
19. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs and others vs. State .
of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568 have succinctly explained the general principles for determination of market value of the acquired land. Their Lordships have held as under:
of [4] In order to determine the compensation which the tenure- holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what rt the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. See Thakur Kanta Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2219; Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M. P., AIR 1977 SC 1560; Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 15 Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Periyar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2192.
[5] For ascertaining the market value of the land, the .
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential of value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, rt water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector Raigarh v.
Hari Singh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472, Raghubans Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1969 SC 465 and Administrator General, W. B. v. Collector Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943. It has been held in Kaushalya Devi v. L.A.O. Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 and Suresh Kumar v. T.I. Trust, AIR 1980 SC 1222 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.
20. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh (Dead) through LRs and others versus Union of India and others, (2010) 3 SCC 794 have held that it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector and the court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use for which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 16 special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the .
same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally relevant to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar of potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Collector as well as the court rt should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. Their Lordships have held as under:
"11. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land.
13. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 17 Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the .
same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable."
21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme in Trishala Jain and another versus State of Uttaranchal of and another, (2011) 6 SCC 47 have held that the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for rt determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. Their Lordships have held as under:
44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits."
22. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himmat Singh and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392, in a case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP 18 where the reference court has made three tier deductions viz. (i) 25% for leaving out portions of acquired land for .
purpose of laying roads, drains etc., (ii) 25% towards expenses for development work, and (iii) 50% towards smallness of plots sold, which was approved by High Court, have held that such approach was clearly erroneous since of respondent State had not even suggested that such development work was undertaken for purpose of laying railway line.
rtHence, deductions made under first two heads were unsustainable.
23. In the present case, there is neither any evidence nor any suggestion that such development was undertaken while constructing Sanjauli-Dhalli by pass road.
24. Accordingly, In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, RFA No. 44/2009 is allowed and the award dated 6.12.2008 is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 9,05,107/- per bigha alongwith statutory benefits. RFA No.181 of 2009 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
23.3.2016*awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:58:48 :::HCHP