Gujarat High Court
Thakore Keshaji Galaji(Deceased) vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 13/11/2025
Pronounced On : 04/12/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9983 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
THAKORE KESHAJI GALAJI(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Respondent(s) No. 4,4.3
MS SURBHI BHATI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No.
4.1,4.2,4.4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined order or directions quashing and setting aside order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the District Collector, Patan in VP/Land/Vashi/786 to 798/2011 (at ANNEXURE-
F hereto) as well as order dated 30.04.2012/ 01.05.2012 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/Jaman/patan/16/2011 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto);
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the District Collector, Patan in VP/Land/Vashi/786 to 798/2011 (at ANNEXURE-F hereto) as well as order dated 30.04.2012/ 01.05.2012 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/Jaman/patan/16/2011 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto) and also further be pleased to direct the respondents herein to maintain status-quo with respect to the land in question;
(C) xxx xxx xxx."
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under, 2.1 The land bearing Survey No.222 pk.1 admeasuring 0-80-94 Sq.Mtrs. situated in moje Nandotri, Taluka : Siddhpur, District : Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the land in Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined question") was originally granted in favour of one Thakore Galaji Ranchhodji and accordingly, Entry No.149 came to be mutated in the revenue records on 24.10.1949. 2.2 Thereafter on sad demise of original grantee, name of his legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record and accordingly, Entry No.239 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 16.09.1963.
2.3 Thereafter on 18.08.2008, the original land owners have entered into sale transaction with the respondent no.4 herein by executing registered sale deed in their favour and accordingly, Entry No.985 came to be mutated in the record of rights, however, the said entry could not be certified and it was rejected.
2.4. Again sale transaction between the same parties had taken place by way of executing registered sale deed and accordingly, Entry No.999 was mutated in the revenue record, however, it was not certified and it was again rejected.
2.5 Thereafter subsequently, sale transaction had taken place for the land in question and on the basis of the registered sale deed, Entry No.1119 mutated in the record of rights pursuant to the sale transaction came to be rejected by the revenue authority. It is required to be noted at this stage that the Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined above entries was rejected on the ground of breach of condition by an order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Collector and the land in question has been vested into Government.
2.6 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached the Special Secretary (Revenue Department) by filing Revision Application, however by an order dated 30.04.2012/01.05.2012, rejected the said revision application. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Nishit Gandhi for the petitioners, learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate, Mr. Urvesh Prajapati with learned advocate, Mr. Pratik Jasani for the respondent nos.4.1, 4.2 and 4.4.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the land in question was originally granted to one Thakore Galaji Ranchhodji and pursuant thereto, Entry No.149 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.10.1949 and at the time of mutation of said entry, category/type of land as reflected in the revenue record was "new tenure land". He further submitted that the original allottee passed away, therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record and accordingly, Entry No.239 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 16.09.1963 and since then, they were in occupation of the land in question and were cultivating the land to run Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined their livelihood. He referred to the revenue record produced on record and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon those record, in that event, it is found out that, at the column of category/type of land, nothing is mentioned i.e. neither old tenure land nor new tenure land. He submitted that subsequently in the year 2006, the State Government has passed Resolution dated 20.12.2006, whereby restriction over the land has been removed for conversion of new impartible land into old tenure land and the case of the petitioner would fall under Schedule - 1 of the said Resolution, wherein it is stated that in case of a person, who holds any land continuously for a period of 15 years without paying price of the premium, the land shall automatically be converted into old tenure land if the use is only for agriculture purpose and for non-agriculture use, permission from the competent authority is required to be obtained subject to payment of premium. He, thereafter, referred to Resolution dated 04.07.2008 issued by the State Government with a sole intent to smoothen the process of conversion of land from new tenure to old tenure. Referring to the said Resolution, it is submitted that by the said Resolution, it is decided not to make any application because all those activities are required to be carried out by the concerned Talati/ Mamlatdar suo motu within a period of 15 days from the issuance of the said Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Resolution and after completion of said task/work, the concerned Mamlatdar has to inform the person concerned about the mutation of entry in the record of rights. He referred to the aforesaid Resolution as well as revenue records produced on record and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of those documents, in that event, it is found out that on sad demise of original allottee, the name of his legal heirs came to be mutated and in the column of category of land, it is mentioned as "old tenure land". He, therefore, submitted that in fact, there was no breach of any of the conditions as alleged, therefore, there was no need for initiation of proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned advocate submitted that in the year 2005, due to up-gradation in the system, the State Government has issued policy for digitization of the revenue records and pursuant thereto, exercise has been undertaken in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the revenue record produced on record and submitted that in the category of land, it is mentioned as "old tenure land" and those documents are lying within the custody of the revenue authorities, therefore, those entries ought to have been mutated in the record of rights by the officer of the revenue department without any application on the part of the petitioner. He Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined submitted that in fact, at the time of execution of registered sale deed of the land in question in favour of the third party, there was no bad intention on the part of the petitioner and after having verified all documents by the third party, they have entered into bonafide transaction, therefore on the basis of the registered document, name of the subsequent purchaser is required to be mutated in the revenue record as per the provision of Section 135(C) of the BLRC, therefore, there is no breach as alleged. He submitted that in fact, subsequent purchase is also an agriculturist and the said sale transaction has taken place in the year 2008 and we are in the year 2025 but still uptill now, he is carrying on agriculture activities upon the said land and also having possession of the land in question.
6. Learned advocate, at this stage, has taken this Court to the Judgment dated 20.07.2017 delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3518/2010 in case of Bhana Teja Dhila Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. and submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said decision. He submitted that in the said case, the Coordinate Bench has considered the Resolutions issued by the State Government of the year 2006 as well as of the year 2008 and, thereafter, allowed the said writ petition directing the concerned revenue authority to mutate the entry and certify. He Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined further submitted that if the facts of the case are examined, in that event, it is also found out that there is gross delay in initiation of the proceedings because as stated above, the sale transaction is of the year 2006 and suo motu proceedings have been initiated in the year 2011 and in view of the settled legal position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in numerous case laws, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate has relied upon following decisions, (1) the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71;
(2) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Chandrakant D. Nimavat Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3035; (3) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Thakkar Shantilal Mohanlal Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (1) GLH 724; (4) the Judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Becharbhai Raninga in Special Civil Application No.9067 of 1999 on 29.06.2018;
8. Referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court coupled with the facts of the case, learned Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined advocate for the petitioners submitted that the suo motu proceedings initiated against the petitioners are contrary to law and against the settled legal proposition of law, therefore, it is urged that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside and the authority concerned may be directed to mutate the entry in the revenue record.
9. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Bhati has vehemently opposed the present petition contending that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are just, proper, legal and based upon sound principle of law, therefore, same may not be interfered with because at the time of passing those orders, the revenue authorities have taken into consideration all aspects of the matter. She submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the revenue records produced on record, in that event, it is found out that the said land was new tenure land and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioners since inception when the entry was mutated, however as soon as the said fact came to the notice of the revenue authorities, the proceedings have been initiated and, thereafter, the land in question vested into Government. He submitted that the petitioners had entered into sale transaction with the respondent no.4 herein without obtaining any prior permission from the competent authority, which resulted into initiation of proceedings Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined against the petitioner on account of breach of condition. She submitted that in fact, by submitting an application by the petitioners, an attempt was being made to get it certified, however thrice the said entry had been cancelled by the revenue authority. She submitted that against the cancellation of the entry, the petitioners first approached the respondent - Collector, where his request has been turned down and, thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent - SSRD by preferring Revision Application, however, the said application has been rejected. He submitted that in fact, at the time of passing impugned orders by the respondent
- SSRD as well as the respondent - Collector, justifiable reasons have been assigned by the authorities, which do not require any interference. She further submitted that there was bonafide mistake on the part of the revenue authorities and that might have occurred during the process of digitalizing the revenue entries, therefore, benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. She further submitted that there is no dispute about the issuance of the said Government Resolution, upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioners, however in fact, the said sale transaction is in contravention of the provision of law, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the same. It is, therefore, urged Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined that the present petition may be dismissed.
10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it transpires that one Thakore Galabji Ranchhodji was the original allottee of the land in question, which is new tenure land and accordingly Entry No.149 came to be mutated in the revenue records on 24.10.1949, however subsequent on 16.09.1963, Entry No.239 came to be mutated in the revenue record mutating the name of heirs of said Galabji Thakor after his death and since then, they were in occupation and possession of the land in question and they were cultivating the land in question since 2008. Thereafter, the land owner entered into sale transaction with the respondent no.4 but the entries pursuant to registered sale deed were cancelled by the revenue authorities on the ground of breach of condition contending that the land in question pertains to new tenure land, therefore, prior permission before entering into sale transaction ought to have been taken, therefore, the respondent - Mamlatdar and Collector rejected those entries, against which, Revision Application was preferred before the respondent - SSRD, however there also, the said Revision Application has been rejected, which led the petitioner to file present petition.
11. Thus having considered the submissions and documents available on record, it is found out that the dispute is with regard to cancellation of Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the entries mutated pursuant to registered sale deed and forfeiture of the land into Government on the ground of breach of condition as before entering into sale transaction, as per the case of the Government, despite the land being new tenure land, prior permission has not been obtained by the parties. However submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon Government Resolutions dated 20.12.2006 and 04.07.2008 is required to be considered. On considering the Resolution dated 20.12.2006, it is found out that by the said Resolution restriction over the land has been removed for conversion of new and indivisible land into old tenure land by stating that in case of a person, who holds any land continuously for a period of 15 years without paying price of the premium, the land shall automatically be converted into old tenure land if the use is only for agriculture purpose and for non-agriculture use, permission from the competent authority is required to be obtained subject to payment of premium. Subsequently, the State Government came with another Resolution dated 04.07.2008, which in the facts of the present case is applicable to the case of petitioner. As per the said Resolution, it is the duty of the Mamlatdar concerned to see to it that all the agriculture land, which is being used for the agricultural purpose only and required to continuously in possession for 15 years, shall be Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined converted into "old tenure land" from "new and impartible land" by making necessary entry in the revenue records to the said effect that "only non- agriculture purpose subject to premium" within a period of 15 days and the person concerned shall be intimated accordingly. However in the present case, at the time of entering into sale transaction with the original land owner, the petitioner has verified all revenue records and, thereafter, he purchased the land in question by executing registered sale deed and at that relevant point of time, the said land was old tenure land, therefore, the entries pursuant to sale transactions ought to have been mutated.
12. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Bhana Teja Dhila (supra), upon which, reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner. IN the said decision, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has observed as under, "6. ............................... It is also to be noted that for smooth implementation of the said Government Resolution, the Government Resolution dated July 04, 2008, has been passed; the English translation of the relevant portion thereof from vernacular language reads as under :
"2(a) The new tenure land and the restricted tenure land under the Tenancy Act of whose possession is continued for a period from the date of grant till the last date of each month for a period of Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 15 years or more, such lands if are admissible for conversion into old tenure for agricultural purpose, then by deleting the entry as "New and restricted tenure type" in the land records, by indicating the same as "Admissible for premium only for Non agricultural purpose", by passing such orders by the concerned Taluka Mamlatdar on his own within a period of 15 days, the concerned account holder shall be intimated in writing. Moreover, it will be the responsibility of the Mamlatdar to get posted the mutation entry of such order in the record of rights as per rules and to certify the same."
7. It was, thus, incumbent upon the Mamlatdar concerned at the end of every month that whichever land used for the agricultural purpose if the continuous possession for 15 years gets completed, on deleting the entire new tenure entry, the entry be posted that the premium to be made only for the purpose of converting it into nonagricultural use. Further, in such cases, the Mamlatdar needs to do it on his own within a period of 15 days and also needs to intimate all the concerned parties about it. Furthermore, in the concerned village Form Number, the onus would be of the Mamlatdar to make an entry and the same needed to be mutated and certified by him.
8. The present petitioner had purchased the land Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined from one Gangaben Khumant. It is not in dispute that she was an heir and legal representative of her husband, who continued to hold the said land for more than 15 years. It is also not in dispute that on April 16, 2007, a registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the present petitioner. It is a matter of record that once the matter had transferred to the concerned Mamlatdar at Bhachau, on June 13, 2009, he passed an order stating therein that the applicant therein was in possession of the said land for more than 15 years and, therefore, there is no breach of any condition. He specified that the sale is to be effected only to the agriculturist and at the time of converting the said land for nonagricultural purpose, the premium needed to be paid and necessary entry needed to be mutated in the revenue record.
9. Thereafter, this very officer passed the impugned order after hearing the learned counsel for the Objector and present petitioner, observing that since the sale has been effected without obtaining permission, it is a matter of breach of condition. Surprisingly, when the Government Resolution is dated December 20, 2006 and the registered sale deed has been effected in April 16, 2007, it is after the policy of the Government in the month of December, 2006, that the sale deed has been effected. When there is no dispute with regard to withholding the possession of the land continuously for a Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined period of more than 15 years, there is no question of breach of any condition. The Mamlatdar himself had passed the order saying that the concerned seller from whom the petitioner purchased continued to enjoy the possession over the land for more than 15 years continuously and, therefore, the Government Resolution dated December 20, 2006, would be applicable in her case. Assuming that there was any objection to such sale that had been made to the present petitioner by the erstwhile owner, it is inevitable and incomprehensible as to how the very officer who is in know of the Government Resolution dated December 20, 2006, can pass an order which is impugned in this petition. Once having directed an entry to be made in the wake of the said Government Resolution and after holding that the earlier owner continued to be in possession for more than 15 years, he himself without any reason changed his own order and directed a proposal to the Deputy Collector.
10. This has made the petitioner to approach this Court in the year 2010 itself. This appears to be not a clear act of nonapplication of mind as alleged, but, a deliberate action on the part of the concerned officer. One can understand that he was oblivious of the policy of the Government dated December 20, 2006, or that which had floated in the year 2008, that he had passed such an order. However, he himself had held the possession of the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined erstwhile owner on the land in question continuously for a period of 15 years as valid and directed necessary entry to be in the revenue record and yet he has chosen to take a somersault after having an afterthought for no conceivable reason. This also appears to be an act of sheer arbitrariness. In view of aforesaid, the present petition deserves to be allowed."
13. As can be seen from the facts narrated hereinabove as well as from the documents produced on record, the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the deceased, Galaji Thakore, who is original allottee of the land in question and after his sad demise on 16.09.1963, their names were mutated and since then, they are in occupation and possession of the land in question i.e. since last more than 15 years. Further, first sale transaction has taken place on 18.08.2008 by way of executing registered sale deed and much before that i.e. on 04.07.2008, the aforesaid Resolution came into effect and as per recital of the said Resolution, it was the duty of the Mamlatdar concerned to make necessary correction in the revenue record by changing the category of the land from "new and impartible tenure land" to "old tenure land" only non- agriculture purpose subject to premium within a period of 15 days but admittedly such exercise has not been carried out. Further at the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that at the time of purchase of the land in question by the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9983/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined petitioner, the category of the land as mentioned in the revenue record reflects "old tenure land"
and there is no dispute about the fact of holding the land in question since last more than 15 years by the original land owner.
14. Thus in view of the above observation, the present petition stands allowed. The order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the respondent - Collector, Patan as well as the order dated 30.04.2012/ 01.05.2012 passed by respondent - SSRD are hereby quashed and set aside. The revenue authorities are hereby directed to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue record as owner and occupier of the land in question within a period of four weeks. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J.) Gautam Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:31:33 IST 2025