# Gokul Ram & Ors v. Shiv Jokhan Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-24
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 2019 of 1978
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gokul-ram-ors-v-shiv-jokhan-singh-ors-49839
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Sale Deed by Natural
Guardian - Voidable Sale Deed - Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, S. 331 - Civil Court
versus Revenue Court Jurisdiction - Civil
Court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide
the suit for cancellation of the voidable
sale deed executed by natural guardian -
Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939, S. 9(1) -
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act,
1937, S. 3(1) - United Provinces Hindu
Women's Rights to Property (Extension to
Agricultural Land) Act, 1942, Section 2 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reforms Act (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act), 1950,
Ss. 4, 171 - U/s 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Tenancy Act, 1939, the rights of a sirholder in agricultural land were governed
by the personal laws of the deceased. S.
3(1) of the Hindu Women's Right to
Property Act, 1937, provides that a Hindu
widow can inherit her husband's property
but only with a limited (life) interest. This
right was extended to agricultural land by
the 1942 Act. Upon the vesting of property
u/s 4 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on
01.07.1952,
successors
of
a
woman
holding a life interest as a widow prior to
the date of vesting is determined as per S.
171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. S. 171
was amended by Act No. XVI of 1953, and
it added sisters' son among the list of
successors.

B. In the present case, Deep Narain died
issue-less on 18.08.1950. He was survived
by his widow Phool Kumari, who inherited
his interest in the disputed land. After the
vesting of the property on 01.07.1952,
Phool
Kumari
became
the
owner
(bhoomidhar).
A
sale
deed
dated
18.02.1963 was executed by Smt. Jai Raji
(Mst. Phool Kumari's sister), as guardian
of her minor sons, for the property
inherited from Phool Kumari. Minor sons,
upon attaining majority, filed a suit for
cancellation of the sale deed. Civil Court
decreed the suit, holding that the sale
deed was without any authority as the
vendor, namely Smt. Jai Raji, never
inherited
the
property
in
dispute.
Appellant's
case
was
that
only
the
Revenue Court would have jurisdiction to
hear the case. Held: The sale deed dated
18.02.1963 was voidable at the option of
the minors. Sale deed could not be ignored
by the Revenue Court. Civil Court had
exclusive jurisdiction to decide the suit for
cancellation of the said sale deed, and the
Revenue
Court
could
not
make
a
declaration
against
it
until
such
a
challenge was raised. Only Deep Narain's
sisters' sons would have inherit the
property on death of Mst. Phool Kumari
and not his sisters. (Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Gokul Ram & Ors. Vs. Shiv Jokhan Singh & Ors.
1219

19. Likewise in the case of Chandra
Prakash Shahi (supra), the termination
preceeded by a preliminary enquiry in
which appellant was found involved in
incident of quarrel, hence it was held that
termination was founded upon misconduct
and, therefore, punitive. The facts of this
case is also distinguishable from the
present case.

20. In the case of V.P. Ahuja
(supra), the impugned order was ex facie
found to be stigmatic and also punitive.
The order was passed on the ground that
the appellant failed in discharging his
duties administrively and technically. Then
it was held that termination order could not
have been passed without holding regular
enquiry and the termination was held to be
punitive, which is not the case in the
present case.

21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sukhwinder Singh (supra) has held that
the superior authorities of the department
has to take work from employee and they
are the best people to judge whether an
employee should be continued in service
and made a permanent employee or not.
The probationer is on test and a temporary
employee has no right to the post.

22. In the present case, the petitioner
was on probation; he was appointed just
three months' back; he was unauthorizedly
absent from duty for a period of 22 days,
therefore, the competent authority has
rightly terminated the services of the
petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Central
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965 after giving one month's notice by a
simplicitor order, which is neither punitive
in nature nor stigmatic. Terminating the
services of the petitioner in exercise of
employer's right to dispense with the
services of such employee within a period
of probation, would not make an otherwise
innocuous order of discharge or termination
of service punitive in nature.

23. In view of the aforesaid, no
interference is required in the impugned
order
of
termination
and
impugned
appellate order.

24. The petition being devoid of merit
is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1219
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Second Appeal No. 2019 of 1978

Gokul Ram & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Shiv Jokhan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.L. Yadav, Sri P.K. Dubey, Sri Prabhat Kumar,
Sri Siddharth Niranjan, Sri D.P. Singh(Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Manish Dev
Singh, Sri R.N. Singh, Sri S.N. Singh

A. Civil Law - Sale Deed by Natural
Guardian - Voidable Sale Deed - Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, S. 331 - Civil Court
versus Revenue Court Jurisdiction - Civil
Court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide
the suit for cancellation of the voidable
sale deed executed by natural guardian -
Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939, S. 9(1) -
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act,
1937, S. 3(1) - United Provinces Hindu
Women's Rights to Property (Extension to
Agricultural Land) Act, 1942, Section 2 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reforms Act (U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act), 1950,
Ss. 4, 171 - U/s 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Tenancy Act, 1939, the rights of a sirholder in agricultural land were governed
by the personal laws of the deceased. S.
3(1) of the Hindu Women's Right to
Property Act, 1937, provides that a Hindu
widow can inherit her husband's property
but only with a limited (life) interest. This
right was extended to agricultural land by
the 1942 Act. Upon the vesting of property
u/s 4 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on
01.07.1952,
successors
of
a
woman
holding a life interest as a widow prior to
the date of vesting is determined as per S.
171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. S. 171
was amended by Act No. XVI of 1953, and
it added sisters' son among the list of
successors.

B. In the present case, Deep Narain died
issue-less on 18.08.1950. He was survived
by his widow Phool Kumari, who inherited
his interest in the disputed land. After the
vesting of the property on 01.07.1952,
Phool
Kumari
became
the
owner
(bhoomidhar).
A
sale
deed
dated
18.02.1963 was executed by Smt. Jai Raji
(Mst. Phool Kumari's sister), as guardian
of her minor sons, for the property
inherited from Phool Kumari. Minor sons,
upon attaining majority, filed a suit for
cancellation of the sale deed. Civil Court
decreed the suit, holding that the sale
deed was without any authority as the
vendor, namely Smt. Jai Raji, never
inherited
the
property
in
dispute.
Appellant's
case
was
that
only
the
Revenue Court would have jurisdiction to
hear the case. Held: The sale deed dated
18.02.1963 was voidable at the option of
the minors. Sale deed could not be ignored
by the Revenue Court. Civil Court had
exclusive jurisdiction to decide the suit for
cancellation of the said sale deed, and the
Revenue
Court
could
not
make
a
declaration
against
it
until
such
a
challenge was raised. Only Deep Narain's
sisters' sons would have inherit the
property on death of Mst. Phool Kumari
and not his sisters. (Para 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

1. Narendra Kumar Mittal & ors. Vs M/s. Nupur
Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. & anr., 2019
(144) RD 785

2. Shri Ram & anr. Vs Ist Addl. Distt. Judge &
ors.; (2001) 3 SCC 24

3. Ram Awalamb Vs Jata Shankar; AIR 1969
Allahabad 526

4. Ram Padarath & ors. Vs Second Addl. District
Judge, Sultanpur & ors.; 1989 (1) AWC 290
(All).

5.
Nangali
Amma
Bhavani
Amma
Vs
Gopalkrishnan Nair; (2004) 8 SCC 785

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. Present second appeal is filed
against the judgment and decree dated
18.4.1978 passed by the IVth Additional
District Judge, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal
No.8 of 1978 affirming the judgment and
decree dated 10.12.1973 passed in Original
Suit No.222 of 1970.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that Sri Deep Narain was Sir holder of an
agricultural land. He died issue-less on
18.8.1950 and, hence, the property was
inherited by his wife Mst. Phool Kumari.
Though there was a dispute with regard to
the date of death of Mst. Phool Kumari, as
plaintiffs-respondents claimed that date of
death is 12.8.1954 while the defendantsappellants claimed that date of death is
after 10.10.1954, but both the courts have
given finding of fact that she died on
12.8.1954. The said finding is on the basis
of a substitution application filed after the
death of Mst. Phool Kumari in an earlier
4 All. Gokul Ram & Ors. Vs. Shiv Jokhan Singh & Ors.
1221
proceeding before the High Court and,
hence, is not disputed before this Court
during course of arguments by the
appellants.

4. Sri Deep Narain and Mst. Phool Kumari
died issueless. Sri Deep Narain, late
husband of Mst. Phool Kumar had three
sisters, namely, Smt. Jai Raji, Smt. Subh
Raji and Smt. Hub Raji. Two sons, namely,
Shiv Jokhan and Faujdar were born of Smt.
Jai Raji and her husband Raj Narain, Ram
Samujh and Sumer Singh were born of
Mst. Subh Raji and Hakim Singh was born
of Mst. Hubraji. All of them were born
before the death of Mst. Phool Kumari, i.e.,
before 12.8.1954. By a sale-deed dated
18.02.1963, Smt. Jai Raji alongwith her
husband Raj Narain and Smt. Subhraji sold
the property in dispute, on their own behalf
and as guardian of their minor sons who
were born by that time, which came by way
of succession from Mst. Phool Kumari.
Minor sons, Shiv Jokhan, Faujdar and Ram
Samujh, on becoming major filed a suit
before the Civil Court for cancellation of
the said sale deed by Original Suit No.222
of 1970. The Civil Court decreed the suit
holding that the sale deed was without any
authority as none of the vendors namely
Smt. Jai Raji, Mst. Subh Raji and Sri Raj
Narain ever inherited the property in
dispute. The Appellate Court thereafter
affirmed the said finding and dismissed the
appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the defendantappellant in the said background has raised
two substantial questions of law;

(i) whether the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court have wrongly applied the
law of succession; and

(ii) whether the suit is barred by
Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and
L.R. Act) and it is only the Revenue Court
that would have jurisdiction to hear the
case.

6. So far as the issue of succession is
concerned, there are two parts to it viz. (i)
whether Phool Kumari could succeed her
husband's Sir rights in an agricultural land
and if the answer to the first part is
affirmative then (ii) who would succeed
Phool Kumari's interest after her death.
Now coming to the first part, the death of
Late Deep Narain took place on 18.8.1950
i.e. before coming into force of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act which was given assent by the
President on 24.1.1951. Prior to the
enactment of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act,
succession of rights of a Sir holder in an
agricultural land was governed by Section
9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act,
1939. Section 9(1) of the said Act reads,

"Section
9:
Succession
to,
and
transfer of, sir right-
(1) On the death of a sir-holder sir right
shall not devolve except in accordance with
the personal law to which the deceased was
subject."

Thus rights of a Sir holder in an
agricultural land shall devolve as per the
relevant personal laws at that time. It is not
disputed that Deep Narain died issueless
and was survived by his widow Phool
Kumari. At that time a Hindu widow could
succeed her husband's rights in a property
as per the Section 3(1) of the Hindu
Women's Right to Property Act, 1937
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1937).
However as per sub-section 3(3) such
devolution shall be only be a life interest.
Section 3(1) and 3(3) of the Act of 1937
reads,
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"3. Devolution of property.- (1) When
a Hindu governed by the Dayabhag School
of Hindu Law dies intestate leaving any
property, and when a Hindu governed by
any other school of Hindu Law or by
customary law dies intestate leaving
separate property, his widow, or if there is
more than one widow all his widows
together, shall, subject to the provisions of
subsection (3), be entitled in respect of
property in respect of which he dies
intestate to the same share as a son:

Provided
that
the
widow
of
a
predeceased son shall inherit in like
manner as a son if there is no son surviving
of such predeceased son, and shall inherit
in like manner as a son's son if there is
surviving a son or son's son of such
predeceased son:

Provided
further
that
the
same
provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to
the widow of a predeceased son of a
predeceased son.

......

(3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu
widow under the provisions of this section
shall be the limited interest known as a
Hindu woman's estate, provided however
that she shall have the same right of
claiming partition as a male owner."

Thus a Hindu widow could succeed
the property rights of her deceased
husband, but the same was limited interest
i.e., only a life interest. The Act of 1937
was a federal legislation and therefore
agricultural land was out of its ambit as
under the Government of India Act, 1935,
only
Provincial
Government
was
competent to legislate on matters pertaining
to agricultural lands. However, in 1942 the
Provincial
Government
of
United
Provinces enacted the United Provinces
Hindu
Women's
Rights
to
Property
(Extension to Agricultural Land) Act, 1942
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1942)
to also include agricultural land within the
meaning of the word ''property' in Section
3(1) of the Act of 1937. Section 2 of the
Act of 1942 reads,

"2. Extension of Act XVIII of 1937
and Act XI of 1938 to Agricultural land. -
The term "property" in the Hindu Women's
Rights to Property Act 1937, and Hindu
Women's Rights to Property (Amendment)
Act, 1938; shall include and shall be
deemed
always
to
have
included
agricultural land :

Provided that where any person who,
but for this Act, would have been entitled to
any property, has been in possession or has
made a transfer thereof, his possession till
the commencement of this Act shall be
deemed to be as lawful, and the transfer
made by him shall be deemed to be as valid
as if this Act had not been passed : and

Provided further that nothing in this
Act shall affect any rule of succession
prescribed
for
tenant's
rights
in
agricultural land by any special law for the
time being in force."

A joint reading of the aforesaid
provisions therefore confirms the finding of
both the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court that Phool Kumari succeeded her
husband's interest in the land in dispute
after his death.

7. The next question that arises is the
successor of Phool Kumari. Section 4 of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which vests the
property was enforced from 1.7.1952.
Thus, after the vesting, Mst. Phool Kumari
became bhoomidhar of the property in
dispute under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
Succession under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act
with regard to a woman holding a life
interest as a widow since prior to the date
4 All. Gokul Ram & Ors. Vs. Shiv Jokhan Singh & Ors.
1223
of vesting is provided under Section
172(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The said Section at
the time of coming into force of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act reads as follows:

"172. Succession in the case of a
woman holding an interest inherited as a
widow, mother, daughter, etc. -

.....

(2) Where a bhumidhar or sirdar who
has before the date of vesting inherited an
interest in any holding as a widow, mother,
step-mother, father's mother, daughter,
sister or step-sister-

(a) dies, and such bhumidhar or sirdar
was on the date immediately before the said
date an intermediary of the land comprised
in the holding, or held the holding as a
fixed-rate tenant, or an ex-proprietary or
occupancy tenant in Avadh, or as a tenant
on special terms in Avadh and
(i) she was in accordance with the personal
law applicable to her entitled to a life
estate only in the holding, the holding shall
devolve upon the nearest surviving heir
(such heir being ascertained in accordance
with the provisions of section 171) of the
last male intermediary or tenant aforesaid;
and if........"

8. Successors of a woman holding a
life interest as a widow prior to the date of
vesting will therefore be determined as per
provisions of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act. The original Section 171
reads as follows:

"171. General order of successions-
Subject to the provisions of sections 169
and 173, when a bhumidhar, sirdar or
asami being a male dies, his interest in his
holding shall devolve in accordance with
the order of succession given below:

(a) male lineal descendants in the
male line of descent :

Provided that the son or sons of a predeceased son how-low-so-ever shall inherit
the share which would have devolved upon
the deceased if he had been then alive;

(b) widow;

(c) father;

(d) mother, being a widow;

(e) father's father;

(f) father's mother, being a widow;

(g) widow of a male lineal descendant
in the male line of descent;

(h) step-mother, being a widow;

(i)unmarried daughter;

(j) daughter's son ;

(k) brother, being the son of the same
father as the deceased;

(l) unmarried sister;

(m) brother's son, the brother having
been a son of the same father as

the deceased;

(n) father's father's son;

(o) brother's son's son;

(p) father's father's son's son."

The same was amended by Section 39
of U.P. Act No. XVI of 1953 and was given
retrospective effect from July 1, 1952. By
Section 39 of the U. P. Act XVI of 1953,
clause (j) was made (k) and vice versa.
Clause (mn) was added and introduced
after clause (m) as "(mn) sister's son".

A bare perusal of Section 171 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, after it was duly
amended by Act No. XVI of 1953, shows
that it added sisters' son among the list of
seccessors.

The Act was further amended by U.P.
Act No.20 of 1954 which came in force
from 19.10.1954. The said amendment
made sisters preferential successor over
sister's sons. However, both the Courts
have given a concurrent finding that Mst.
Phool Kumari died on 12.08.1954 i.e.,
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before coming into force of the U.P. Act
No. 20 of 1954 and are not disputed during
course of arguments before this Court.
Thus, under Section 172(2)(a)(i) read with
Section 171(1)(mn), as it stood on
12.8.1954, i.e., the day Mst. Phool Kumari
died, it is Deep Narain's sisters' sons who
would inherit the property. Thus, there is no
illegality in the finding recorded by both
the courts holding that only Deep Narain's
sisters' sons would inherit the property on
death of Mst. Phool Kumari on 12.8.1954
as per the law applicable on the said date,
and not his sisters.

9. So far as the substantial question of
law number two that jurisdiction of the
Civil Court would be barred under Section
331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and only
Revenue
Court
has
jurisdiction
is
concerned,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the cases of
Narendra Kumar Mittal and others v.
M/s. Nupur Housing Development Pvt.
Ltd. and another ; 2019 (144) RD 785
and Shri Ram and another v. Ist Addl.
Distt. Judge and others; (2001) 3 SCC 24
and Full Bench judgments of this Court in
the cases of Ram Awalamb v. Jata
Shankar; AIR 1969 Allahabad 526 and
Ram Padarath and others v. Second
Addl. District Judge, Sultanpur and
others; 1989 (1) AWC 290 (All).

10. Learned counsel for the appellants
has strongly submitted that in view of the
aforesaid judgments, it is only the Revenue
Court, which can hear the matter with
regard to declaration of ownership of the
property.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that since the suit is filed for
cancellation of sale deed dated 18.02.1963
executed by natural guardians of minors, it
is only the Civil Court, which would decide
the dispute as the sale deeds were required
to be cancelled and could not be ignored till
it is cancelled. He further submits that in
any view of the matter, property is sold by
the natural guardian of the minors and,
since, on attaining majority, the minors
intend to get the sale deed cancelled,
therefore, only the Civil Court has
jurisdiction in such a scenario.

12. Law with regard to a sale deed
executed by a natural guardian of a minor
under the Hindu law and its cancellation is
settled since long. Natural guardian has a
right to execute the sale deed of the
property and even presuming that the same
is having any defect, and minors have a
right to rectify the same on becoming
major. This option available with minors
makes the sale deed at best a voidable
document. Suffice would be to refer to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v.
Gopalkrishnan Nair; (2004) 8 SCC 785,
relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment
reads,

"8. In view of the express language
used, it is clear that the transaction entered
into
by
the
natural
guardian
in
contravention of sub-section (2) was not
void but merely voidable at the instance of
the minor. To hold that the transaction in
violation of Section 8(2) is void would not
only be contrary to the plain words of the
statute but would also deprive the minor of
the right to affirm or ratify the transaction
upon attaining majority. This Court in
Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan [(2001) 6
SCC 163] has also held that such
transactions are not void but merely
voidable. It was also held that a suit must
4 All. Ravi Shanker Maurya Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1225
be filed by a minor in order to avoid the
transaction within the period prescribed
under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The
High Court did not consider the issue of
limitation at all in view of its finding on the
effect of a violation of Section 8(2) of the
Act. As the conclusion of the High Court on
this aspect of the matter is unsustainable,
the impugned decision must be set aside."

13. In view of the law settled as
aforesaid, the sale deed dated 18.2.1963 at
best is a voidable document at the option of
the minors, as the minors may or may not
challenge the same. As per the law settled
by the Full Bench of this court in the case
of Ram Padarath (supra), Civil Court's
jurisdiction is ousted and Revenue Court
will have exclusive jurisdiction to decide
the title of a person over an agricultural
property only when the Revenue Court can
ignore a void ab initio document and
proceed to grant reliefs. The same principle
was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in
the cases of Shri Ram (supra) and
Narendra
Kumar
Mittal
(supra).
Paragraph 7 of the judgment in Ram
Padarath (supra) reads:

"7. So far as voidable documents like
those obtained by practising coercion,
fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence
etc., are concerned, their legal effect
cannot be put to an end without its
cancellation. But a void document is not
required to be cancelled necessarily. Its
legal effect if any can be put to an end to by
declaring it to be void and granting some
other relief instead of cancelling it. Once it
is held to be void it can be ignored by any
court or authority being of no legal effect
or consequence. A document executed
without free consent or one which is
without consideration or the object of
which is unlawful or executed by a person
not competent to contract like a minor or in
excess of authority would be a void
document. In case it is in excess of
authority it would be void to that extent
only.
There
is
presumption
of
due
registration of a document and correctness
of the facts mentioned in the same, but the
said presumption is not conclusive and be
dislodged."

14. In the present case, since the
document could not be ignored by the
Revenue Court and it needs to be
challenged before its effect could be
nullified, therefore, the Civil Court alone
had jurisdiction to decide the case. The sale
deed dated 18.2.1963, till it is challenged
by minors, stands valid and in the said
circumstances, the Revenue Court cannot
give any declaration against it. Thus, it is
only the Civil Court which is having
jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and
decide the suit. There is no illegality in the
judgment and decree passed by both the
courts.

15. The second appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 48893 of 2017

Ravi Shanker Maurya ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: