# Popai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-20
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 15087 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/popai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47197
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petitioner applied for grant of fisheries
lese -approval granted on 18.07.2016 and
the same got registered on 14.03.2017granted lease for 5 years-Rule 57 (12) of
Uttar Pradesh revenue Code rules, 2016
was substituted on 20.10.2016 and period
of lease ws extended from 5 years to 10
years. Claim for changing the period for
lesse from 5 years to 10 years claiming it
on the basis of date of registrationrejected-date of registration cannot be
relevant date to determine period of
lease-it is a consequential action to the
approval-Rule 57 has prospective effectclaim rightly rejected.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Popai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
erroneously entertained by the revisional
court. Hence, the order passed on the
substitution application impugned herein
this petition is equally bad in the eye of
law.

9. It may be relevant to note that the
consequence of abatement does not follow
as a result of death of the landlord or a
tenant in the proceedings instituted under
the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the
overriding effect of the Act by virtue of
Section 38 to the extent of inconsistency
with CPC makes the application of Section
34(4) of the Act as indispensable, therefore,
bringing on record the legal representatives
or the legal heirs of the deceased party for
continuity of the proceeding becomes a
pre-requisite.

10. The thirty days period of
limitation stipulated under Rule 25 of the
Rules applicable in this behalf is statutorily
prescribed and for this purpose the
provisions of Limitation Act are open to be
taken aid of in the event of delay.

11. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that not
only that the order rejecting the amendment
application filed by the plaintiffs in Misc.
Case No. 1 of 2016 by order dated
16.10.2018 is non-est but the consequential
proceedings of Revision No. 83 of 2018 are
also bad in the eye of law being nonmaintainable. The proceedings after the
death of defendant no. 6 ought not to have
proceeded without bringing on record her
legal representative/legal heirs.

12. It is thus open to the plaintiffs to
make
an
appropriate
application
for
bringing on record the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the defendant no. 6 in the
pending proceeding under Section 21(1)(a)
of the Act i.e. in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016
and if any such application is filed within
one month from the date of uploading this
order, the competent court shall consider
the said application and pass necessary
order after affording opportunity to both
the parties. The amendment application
shall also be treated to be pending for the
aforesaid reasons and opportunity to file
objections may be granted afresh so that all
the parties may have an opportunity of
filing their objections and setting out their
defence. The amendment application as
well as the proceedings pending under
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act may be brought
to its logical conclusion expeditiously. The
order dated 16.10.2018 along-with the
consequential
proceedings
before
the
revisional
court
are
hereby
set
aside/quashed.

13. The petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------

(2021)08ILR A349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 15087 of 2021

Popai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kaushal Kishore, Mohammad Salman

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petitioner applied for grant of fisheries
lese -approval granted on 18.07.2016 and
the same got registered on 14.03.2017granted lease for 5 years-Rule 57 (12) of
Uttar Pradesh revenue Code rules, 2016
was substituted on 20.10.2016 and period
of lease ws extended from 5 years to 10
years. Claim for changing the period for
lesse from 5 years to 10 years claiming it
on the basis of date of registrationrejected-date of registration cannot be
relevant date to determine period of
lease-it is a consequential action to the
approval-Rule 57 has prospective effectclaim rightly rejected.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashok Service Centre Vs St. of Orissa,
reported in (1983) 2 SCC 82

2.Prahlad Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors., reported
in (2004) 4 SCC 113

3.Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia Vs Land
Acquisition officer [2003 (5) SCC 83]

4.Sant Lal Gupta & ors. Vs Modern Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. & ors. [(2010) 13
SCC 336

5.Kumari Sushila Saxena Vs Sub Registrar,
Shahjahanpur & ors., [ 1997 (1) AWC 346]

6.Smt. Jota Devi Vs DDC [ 2013 (31) LCD 615]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-opposite
party nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Mohan Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed
with the following main relief:-

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding/directing the opposite parties
concerned to mandate for conferring the
benefit of enjoyment of Fisheries lease from
five years to ten years to the petitioner
considering the date of registration as
accrual of rights in favour of petitioner
alongwith social justice in the light of
notification
dated
October
20,
2016
substituted earlier Notification."

3. Facts of the case are that the
petitioner was granted lease of fishing
rights in pond bearing Gata No. 2041
admeasuring 1.520 hectares situated at
village- Kushfar, Pargana- Dariyabad,
Tehsil Ram Sanehighat, District Barabanki,
which was approved by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate on 18.07.2016. The lease deed
in RC form 15 was executed for a period of
five
years
w.e.f.
18.07.2016
upto
17.07.2021
and
was
registered
on
14.03.2017.

4. Rule 57 (12) of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules, 2016') was
substituted vide notification No. 1364/1-12016-20(8)-2016
dated
20.10.2016
published in the Uttar Pradesh gazette on
the same date, by which it was provided
that every such lease (fisheries lease) shall
be executed for a period of ten years and
the same shall not be renewed or extended.
The
petitioner
filed
an
application
requesting the Sub Divisional Officer
concerned to change the period of lease
from five years to ten years in view of
substituted Rule 57(12), as his lease was
registered on 14.03.2017. Prior to this
substitution, the period of lease was only
five years. Petitioner was granted lease for
a period of five years as the lease was
granted under sub-Rule 12, as it was
8 All. Popai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351
existing on that date i.e. prior to its
substitution.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that
the date of registration of the petitioner's lease
being 14.03.2017 i.e. after the amendment of
sub-Rule (12) of Rule 57, the petitioner is
entitled to continue for a period of ten years,
as it is the date of registration which is
relevant and not the date of approval of
fishery lease by the Sub Divisional Officer.
He further submits that in the case of one
Hanuman Prasad, the lease has been granted
for ten years, although, in his case also, the
lease deed was registered after the amended
Rule 57(12) came into force, for which
benefit the petitioner is also entitled.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits
that the amendment came into force on
20.10.2016, whereas the lease was granted
under the unamended Rule, under which the
period of lease was five years. He further
pointed out that in the case of Hanuman
Prasad, approval by the Sub Divisional
Officer was granted on 02.11.2016, after the
amended Rule 57(12) came into force.

7. We have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

8. There is no dispute that the lease was
granted on 18.07.2016 for a period of five years
and it was registered on 14.03.2017. The only
question is applicability of substituted Rule 57
(12) of the Rules, 2016 to a lease approved
before the commencement of substituted Rule
but lease deed registered after it.

9. The management of village tanks is
provided by Section 61 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006, which provides as
under:-

61.
Management
of
village
tanks.- Where a tank in any village is
entrusted or deemed to be entrusted to any
Gram Panchayat under section 59, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any
contract or grant or any law for the time
being in force, its management by such
Gram Panchayat shall be regulated by the
following conditions, namely:-

(a) where the area of the tank
measures 0.5 acre or less, it shall be
reserved for public use by the inhabitants
of the village;

(b) where the area of the tank
exceeds 0.5 acres, the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti shall, with the previous approval of
the Sub-Divisional Officer, let it out in the
manner prescribed.

Explanation. - For the purpose of
this section, the term ''tank', includes talab,
pond, pokhar and other land covered with
water.

10. As per Section 61(b), where the
area of the tank exceeds 0.5 acre, the
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, with the
previous approval of the Sub-Divisional
Officer, let it out in the manner prescribed.
The manner is prescribed under Rules,
2016. Rule 58 relates to the lease of bigger
tanks which exceeds 5 acre. Sub-Rule (2)
applies the provisions of Rule 57 mutatis
mutandis.

11. Rule 58 of the Rules, 2016 reads
as under:-

"58. Lease of bigger Tanks
(Section 61)- (1) Where the area of a tank
referred to in section 61(b) exceeds 5
acres, the Samiti shall let it out with the
prior approval of the Sub-Divisional
Officer
in
the
following
order
of
preference:-
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) Co-operative Societies of
fishermen residing in the concerned village
registered under the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 and recognized by the
Fisheries Department.

(b) Co-operative Societies of
fishermen residing in the concerned Nyaya
Panchayat
Circle
registered
and
recognized as above.

(c) Co-operative Societies of
fishermen
residing
in
the
concerned
Development
Block
registered
and
recognized as above.

(d) Co-operative Societies of
fishermen residing in the district concerned
registered and recognized as above.

(e) Co-operative Societies of
fishermen residing in the State of Uttar
Pradesh and registered and recognized as
above.

(f) Co-operative Societies of
members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes registered and recognized as above.

(g) Other Co-operative Societies
registered and recognized as above.

(2) In all other respects, the
provisions of rule 57 shall mutatis
mutandis apply to the leases of tanks
covered by this rule. Subject to the
condition that, if, there is only one Cooperative Society eligible for the lease
aforesaid, the lease shall be granted on the
annual rent of the amount fixed by the State
Government from time to time which shall
not be less than Rs. 4000/- per acre."

12. Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016 is also
being reproduced as under:-

"57. Lease of smaller Tanks
(Section 61).-

(1) Where the area of a tank
referred to in section 61(b) exceeds 0.5
acre but does not exceeds 5 acres, the
Samiti shall let out the same for fishing
purposes or for growing Singhara with the
prior approval of the SubDivisional Officer
in
accordance
with
the
following
procedure.

(2) For the purposes of letting
such tanks, a camp shall be organized at
the Tahsil level, about which wide publicity
shall be given by publishing the date, time
and place of the camp in at least one Hindi
newspaper having wide circulation in the
area.

(3) The Chairman, the Secretary
and an officer not below the rank of Naib
Tahsildar shall be present at such camp
meetings.
If,
more
than
one
Gram
Panchayats are involved, the Chairmen
and Secretaries of all the Samitees 30
concerned shall attend such meetings.

(4)
With
the
help
of
the
representative of the fishermen community,
to be appointed by the Collector for each
Tahsil, the Secretary shall prepare a list of
eligible persons who may be allotted the
tank under reference, in accordance with
the order of preference specified in subrule (5).

(5)
The
eligibility
list
of
prospective lessees shall be prepared in
accordance with the following order of
preference:-

(a) Fishermen residing in the
concerned Gram Panchayat;

(b) Members of the S.C.,S.T.,
Other Backward Classes or persons of
General category living below poverty line
residing in the Gram Panchayat.

(c) Fishermen residing in the
concerned Nyaya Panchayat Circle;

(d) Fishermen residing in the
concerned Development Block :

Explanation: For the purposes of
this rule and rule 58, the expression
''Fishermen' means any person belonging
to the community of Kewat, Mallah,
Nishad, Bind, Dheemar, Kashyap, Vatham,
8 All. Popai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
Raikwar, Manjhee, Godia, Kahar, Tureha
or Turaha or any other person traditionally
engaged in the fishing profession.

(6) The persons referred to in any
of the preceding clause of sub-rule (5) shall
be entitled to the lease of such tank to the
exclusion
of
those
specified
in
the
succeeding clauses.

(7) If the list of eligible persons
prepared under subrule (4) consists of
more than one person, then an auction
shall be held on the spot in which only
those shall be allowed to participate whose
names are included in such 31 list. If there
is only one person eligible for the lease
aforesaid, the lease shall be granted on the
annual rent of the amount fix by the State
Government from time to time which shall
not be less than Rs. 1000/- and shall not
exceed Rs.2000/- per acre.

(8) The provisions of sections 189
and 190 of the Code shall apply to every
auction under this rule.

(9) When the amount of the
highest bid has been deposited, the
eligibility List, the Bid Sheet and a report
about the deposit of the bid amount duly
signed by the Chairman, Secretary and the
revenue officer referred to in sub-rule (3)
shall be forwarded to the Sub-Divisional
Officer for his approval.

(10) If the Sub-Divisional Officer
is satisfied that the decision to let the tank
is in accordance with the provisions of
these rules, he shall accord his approval
and shall return the papers to the Samiti.

(11) If the Sub-Divisional Officer
approves the proposal, the papers shall be
returned to the Samiti and a Deed of Lease
shall be executed in R.C. Form-15 which
shall be registered under the Registration
Act, 1908.

(12) Every such lease shall be
executed for a period of five years and the
same shall not be renewed or extended.

(13) The lessee may use the tank
allotted to him for the purpose of fishing or
producing
other
aquatic
produce
or
vegetables.

(14) If during the period of lease,
the lessee commits any breach of the terms
and conditions of such lease, the SubDivisional Officer may cancel the lease
after issuing a show cause notice to the
lessee.

(15) During the period of lease
the rights of the local residents to use the
tank for purposes of washing clothes,
watering the cattle, digging out earth for
purposes of pottery or the likes small
remain undisturbed."

13. Rule 57 (12) as quoted above is as
amended on 20.10.2016. This sub-Rule
(12) as it existed prior to such amendment,
is also being reproduced hereinafter:-

"57.(12) Every such lease shall
be executed for a period of five years and
the same shall not be renewed or
extended."

14. The use of the expression 'mutatis
mutandis' implies applicability of such
provision
as
made
applicable
with
necessary changes in the points of details.
In Ashok Service Centre Vs. State of
Orissa, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 82, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
expression ''mutatis mutandis' is a phrase of
practical occurrence, meaning that matters
or things are generally the same, but to be
altered when necessary, as to names,
offices, and the like. In Prahlad Sharma
Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in
(2004) 4 SCC 113, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that, "The expression
"mutatis
mutandis"
itself
implies
applicability
of
any
provision
with
necessary changes in points of detail. The
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rules which are adopted, make the
principles embodied in the rules applicable
and not the details pertaining to particular
authority
or
things
of
that
nature.
Therefore, while applying Rule 57 to the
lease of bigger tanks by virtue of Rule 58
(2), the procedure under Rule 57 shall be
applicable with necessary changes in points
of detail, such as, the area as mentioned
therein shall be read as the area of bigger
tanks.

15. The manner as prescribed for
lease of fisheries is that the samiti i.e. the
Land Management Committee, shall let out
the tank with the prior approval of the subDivisional Officer. The procedure as
prescribed is that a camp shall be organized
at the Tahsil level, about which wide
publicity shall be given by publishing the
date, time and place of the camp in at least
one
Hindi
newspaper
having
wide
circulation in that area. The Chairman, the
Secretary and an Officer not below the rank
of Naib Tehsildar shall be present at such
camp, meetings. With the help of the
representatives
of
the
fishermen
community, to be appointed by the
Collector for each Tehsil, the Secretary
shall prepare a list of eligible persons in
accordance with the order of preference as
given in sub Rule (5). The persons in the
eligibility list shall be entitled to the lease
of Tank to the exclusion of those specified
in the succeeding Clauses of the list,
meaning thereby, that the persons standing
in the order of preference under Clause (a)
shall be given preference over the persons
in clause (b) and so on. If the list of eligible
persons consists of more than one person
under the same clause then an auction shall
be held in which only those persons whose
names are included in the list shall be
allowed to participate and if there is only
one person eligible for the lease, the lease
shall be granted to that person on annual
rent of the amount fixed by the State
Government from time to time, which shall
neither be less nor more than the statutory
amount. In the case of lease of bigger
tanks, the annual rent of the amount shall
not be less than Rs. 4000/- per acre. If the
auction is held, and the amount of the
highest bid has been deposited, the
eligibility list, the bid sheet and a report
about the deposit of the bid amount duly
signed by the Chairman, Secretary and the
Revenue Officer shall be forwarded to the
sub-Divisional Officer, for his approval and
if the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied
that the decision to let the tank is in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 57,
he shall accord his approval and shall
return the papers to the samiti for a deed of
lease to be executed in RC Form 15 which
shall be registered under the Registration
Act, 1908.

16. Section 61 read with Rule 57, thus
provides for the resolution by the Land
Management Committee for grant of
fishery rights to be passed as per the
procedure prescribed which is to be
forwarded to the sub Divisional Officer for
his approval, who shall accord his approval
after being satisfied that the procedure has
been followed in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules. The ''Approval'
means an act of confirming, ratifying,
assenting, sanctioning or consenting to
some act or thing done by another. In
Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia vs. Land
Acquisition officer [2003 (5) SCC 83],
with respect to approval, Hon'ble Apex
Court held that Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
Edition, defines 'approval' to mean an act of
confirming,
ratifying,
assenting,
sanctioning or consenting to some act or
thing done by another. In the context of an
administrative act, the word 'approval' does
8 All. Popai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
not mean anything more than either
confirming,
ratifying,
assenting,
sanctioning or consenting. In Sant Lal
Gupta & Ors vs Modern Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors
[(2010) 13 SCC 336], also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the very act of
approval means, the act of passing
judgment, the use of discretion, and
determining as an adjudication there from
unless limited by the context of the Statute.
If a statute provides for the approval of the
higher authority, the order cannot be given
effect to unless it is approved and the same
remains inconsequential and unenforceable.

17. Therefore, the proposal of the
Land Management Committee to let out the
tank for fisheries cannot be given effect to
unless it is accorded approval by the SubDivisional Officer who has to satisfy that
the decision to let out is in accordance with
the provisions of the Rules, which includes
sub-Rule (12) of Rule 57 i.e. that the
proposal to let out is for the statutory
period prescribed at the time of grant of
approval and not otherwise. After such
approval is accorded, the lease deed is to be
executed in RC Form 15. The lease deed is
to be in consonance with the approval and
not contrary to it.

18. Considering the Scheme of the
Code, 2006 in granting fishery lease, it is
the date of approval by the Sub-Divisional
Officer which is of utmost importance and
relevance as the Sub-Divisional Officer has
to satisfy himself about the resolution of
the samiti to let out the tank to be in
accordance with the provisions of Rules as
on the date of consideration to accord
approval or not. The relevance of the date
of approval is also fortified by the fact that
Rule 59 which provides for appeal to the
Collector, prescribes thirty days period for
filing appeal from the date of approval by
the Sub-Divisional Officer.

19. So far as the registration of a
document is concerned, in Kumari Sushila
Saxena vs. Sub Registrar, Shahjahanpur
and Ors. [ 1997 (1) AWC 346], it has been
held
that
registration
is
merely
a
notification of the factum of execution of a
document
evidencing
the
event
of
transaction affecting the title qua in person
or property. The same principle has been
reiterated in Smt. Jota Devi vs. DDC [
2013 (31) LCD 615] also.

20. In our considered view, the
registration of a document cannot affect nor
change, the terms and conditions of the
document
registered
which
had
the
approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, and
therefore the date of registration cannot be
the relevant date to determine the period of
lease. The registration of lease deed in RC
Form 15 evidences letting out of tank, in
question in favour of the person concerned
and subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned in RC Form 15. It is an action
which is merely consequential to the
approval by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

21. Most importantly, sub-Rule (12)
of Rule 57 as substituted, is prospective
w.e.f. 20.10.2016 and therefore it shall
apply to leases granted after the date of
commencement of substituted Sub Rule
(12)
i.e.
w.e.f.
20.10.2016.
The
applicability of substituted Rule has not
been made dependent upon the date of
registration of lease deed. It has come into
effect
from
a
particular
date
i.e.
20.10.2016. The substituted sub-Rule (12)
does not provide that it shall apply to all the
existing leases neither it extends the period
of existing lease from five years to ten
years nor confers any power on the
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities to extend the period of lease
from five years to ten years.

22. The submission of the petitioner's
counsel based on grant of lease for ten
years to Hanuman Prasad also does not
advance the petitioner's case any further as
in paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner
has admitted that in the case of Hanuman
Prasad, the date of approval is after the date
of commencement of the substituted Rule
57 (12) of the Rules, 2016, which was
granted for ten years.

23. We therefore, do not find any
merit in the writ petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A356
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Misc. Bench No. 15664 of 2020

M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Agendra Sinha, S.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rishabh Kapoor, Raj Kumar Singh, Sudhir
Kumar Pandey

NMCG is ultimate authority to review,
appove and monitor the overall execution
and
implementation
of
tender-Public
interest would outweigh private interest
of the Petitioner-no interference with
award of contract in Judicial Review.
W.P. dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.C. Mehta Vs U.O.I., 1987(4) SCC 463,
(1988) 1 SCC 471, (2015) 2 SCC 764

2. Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit Vs St. of Mah. & Ors: (2011) 9 SCC
340

3.
Raunaq
International
Ltd.,
Vs
I.VsR.
Construction Ltd., & ors.,(1999) 1 SCC 492

4. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar, :
(1976) 1 SCC 761

5. P. Chitharanja Menon & ors. Vs A.
Balakrishnan & ors., (1977) 3 SCC 255

6. Amarjeet Singh & ors. Vs Devi Ratan & ors.,
(2010) 1 SCC 417

7. Air India Ltd. Vs Cochin International Airport
Ltd., & ors. (2000) 2 SCC 617

8. Jagdish Mandal Vs St. of Orissa & ors.,
(2007) 14 SCC 517

9. Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd.Vs
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited & ors.,
(2014) 11 SCC 288

10. Commissioner of Police & anr., Vs Umesh
Kumar (2020) 10 SCC 488

11. Punjab Electricity Board & ors. Vs Malkiat
Singh: (2005) 9 SCC 22

12. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Vs AMR Dev
Prabha: (2020) 16 SCC 759

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. According to Hindu Mythology,
Bhagiratha, a legendary king of the
Ikshvaku dynasty, brought the River Ganga
to Earth from heavens because only she
could bestow nirvana to Bhagiratha's
ancestors who were cursed by Sage Kapila.