Manipur High Court
Smt. R.K Nanao Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 21 February, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.02.24 17:06:11 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 362 of 2021
Smt. R.K Nanao Devi, aged about 45 years grand
daughter of late R.K. Gopalsana Singh and daughter
of late R.K. Sanajaoba Singh, presently residing at
Eroisemba mayai leikai, P.O & P.S Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/ Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of
Manipur, old Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O
& P.S Imphal, Imphal West District.
2. The Commissioner/ Secretary (MAHUD), Govt. of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara P.O &
P.S Imphal, Imphal West District.
3. The Director, MAHUD, Govt. of Manipur, secured
office complex, P.O & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. Ng. Jotindra, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.,
Mrs. L. Monomala, GA
Date of Hearing and
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |2
reserving Judgment & Order :: 12.01.2023.
Date of Judgment & Order :: 21.02.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. Ng. Jotindra, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mrs. L. Monomala, the learned Government Advocate
for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned
senior counsel for the fourth respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to
quash the impugned order dated 12.5.2017 and to direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to deliver and hand over shop No.7 of Ngari
Dukan at Khwairamband Bazar, Imphal as allotted to the
petitioner's late grandfather, namely R.K.Gopalsana Singh, vide
allotment order dated 5.2.2011 issued by the Additional
Secretary, MAHUD, Government of Manipur or any other plot
under construction by Imphal Municipal Council at Sanakeithel,
Lamphel to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Ng. Jotindra, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner's grandfather, namely
R.K.Gopalsana Singh was the owner of the land known as Uripok
Panchai Manak under Patta No.87/627 covered by C.S.Dag
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |3
No.1261/1283 measuring an extent of 0.02 acres situated at
No.87, Imphal West Tehsil and over the piece of the said land,
the petitioner's grandfather opened a grocery shop on the ground
floor and lived with his family on the two floor, including the
petitioner herself. There were many other shop site cum
residential plot of other person contiguous to the petitioner's
grandfather's aforesaid shop site being used and run for similar
purpose.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that after the
demise of the petitioner's grandfather, her late father
R.K.Sanajaoba Singh inherited the aforesaid shop cum
residential plot and continued to run the grocery shop while living
with his family, including the petitioner. While so, some times in
the year 1977, the Government of Manipur attempted to evict the
petitioner's father from the land stating that the said land was a
Government land and eviction case was also registered by the
Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West in Eviction Case No.13 of
1977. However, the eviction order passed by the SDC was
appealed by the petitioner's father before the SDO, Imphal West
in Revenue Appeal No.24 of 1997 and, by the order dated
12.5.1978, the said appeal was allowed, thereby staying the
eviction process. Aggrieved by the same, State of Manipur
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |4
preferred a petition under Section II(3) of the MLR Act and after
conducting an enquiry, on 24.5.1983, an order was passed by
the Deputy Commissioner (Central) in Review Case No.13 of
1978 holding that the land was not a Government land, but a
patta land belonging to late R.K.Sanajaoba Singh.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that eviction was also taken up for the other neighbouring shop
sites and patta land which also met similar fate, as the Deputy
Commissioner (Central) held in all cases that the shop sites were
patta lands of the respective owners/possessors and not
Government khas lands. In view of the order of the Deputy
Commissioner (Central), the eviction proceedings were stopped
by the State authorities and the pattadars were allowed to
continue with their possession and ownership.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
having failed the State authorities to legally evict the petitioner
and other similarly situated neighbours from their respective
lands, on 20.2.1994, the State authorities with the help of police
personnel, demolished the shop cum residential structure of the
petitioner's father without any prior notice. Similarly, demolition
was also carried out over the other neighbouring patta lands.
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |5
Thus, the petitioner's family was completely devastated and
rendered homeless.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then
submitted that the petitioner's father resigned himself to his fate.
However, the other pattadars, who were aggrieved by the illegal
action of the State authority sought compensation for the
demolition of their property by filing suit for damages against the
State Government in Original Suit No.70 of 2007 (re-numbered
as O.S.No.37 of 2022) and, by the judgment and decree dated
26.11.2022, the said suit was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge (FTC), Manipur East, Imphal. Aggrieved by the same,
RFA No.4 of 2003 was filed before the Gauhati High Court,
Imphal Bench. During the pendency of the appeal, the State
authority, on realizing their illegal action of the demolition,
admitted the ownership and requested for taking remedial action.
In view of such decision, the learned Advocate-General
submitted before the Court that a decision was taken by the State
Government to acquire the land for giving compensation.
Accordingly, recording the submission made by the learned
Advocate-General, the appeal was disposed of.
8. The learned counsel next submitted that in view of
such development, the petitioner's father approached the
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |6
concerned authority for compensation etc. and had also
requested the concerned authority to provide an alternative piece
of land rather than giving them compensation, as he is without
livelihood as well as residential plot while reserving the right to
demand for compensation in the event of the alternative land
request being rejected. Considering the request of the
petitioner's father, the authority assured the petitioner's father for
providing the alternative piece of land having an extent of 0.02
acres out of the Government Khas land of C.S.Dag No.737 and
processed for allotment to him as an alternative for the land taken
over by the State authority. Unfortunately, before such allotment
was made, the petitioner's father died.
9. The learned counsel would submit that after the
demise of the petitioner's father, on 11.6.2014, the petitioner has
submitted a representation to the respondent authorities,
including the local MLA, who has also recommended for
allotment of the land stated supra. Since the assurance was not
honoured, the petitioner has again sent a reminder
representation on 5.8.2016 to the State authorities. Despite
receipt of the reminder representation, no action was taken,
which compelled the petitioner in filing W.P.(C) No.760 of 2016.
By the order dated 5.10.2016, this Court disposed of the said writ
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |7
petition by directing the respondents therein to consider and
dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 11.6.2014
and 5.8.2016. Since the respondent authorities failed to obey the
order of this Court, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case No.16
of 2017 and pending Contempt Case, on 12.5.2017, the Deputy
Secretary, Revenue, Government of Manipur, passed the
impugned order stating that the claim made by the petitioner
cannot be considered. Assailing the same, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition.
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that while rejecting the representation of the
petitioner, the respondent authority held that the shop site plot
did not belong to the petitioner's late grandfather and the said
shop site plot was a State khas land and by virtue of which, the
petitioner has no right over the land. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, in the impugned order, it has been held
that the land which was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner
also belongs to PDA, Manipur. Thus, it is contended that the
reasoning given in the impugned order is incorrect.
11. The learned counsel argued that on 22.9.2017, the
Joint Director, MAHUD, Government of Manipur furnished RTI
information to the petitioner that the petitioner's late grandfather
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |8
R.K.Gopalsana Singh was allotted shop No.7 on 5.2.2011 in lieu
of the forcible acquisition of their patta land, including the
petitioner's grandfather's patta land/shop site plot. With regard
to compensation, an information was furnished to the effect that
no one has come to claim the compensation till date.
12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the authorities of MAHUD confirmed the petitioner's entitlement
and the claim, as the shop was indeed allotted in her
grandfather's name in lieu of the forcible acquisition of the
petitioner's grandfather's patta land/shop site. In view of the
development, the petitioner approached the respondent
authorities to deliver and hand over shop No.7 as allotted to her
late grandfather R.K.Gopalsana Singh by virtue of being the legal
heir. However, the respondent authorities have failed to give any
assistance to the petitioner and in fact, they are all avoiding the
petitioner in all manner and evading to deliver and handover the
shop plot to the petitioner.
13. The learned counsel next submitted that earlier the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.850 of 2017 for a direction on the
respondents for delivery and handing over of shop No.7 of Ngari
Dukan at Khwairamband Bazar, Imphal and to quash the order
dated 12.5.2017. By the order dated 16.5.2019, the said writ
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
Page |9
petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue her
remedy by filing an application to the higher authority and the
authority was also directed to consider and dispose of the same
within a period of 12 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
series of representations to the concerned authority requesting
them for delivery and handing over of allotted shop No.7 or any
other plot under construction by Imphal Municipal Corporation at
Sanakeithel, Lamphel as well as for payment of compensation
amount of Rs.57,138/-. However, no action was taken till date.
Since the petitioner being the grand daughter and legal heir of
late R.K.Gopalsana Singh, she is entitled to receive shop No.7
as well as the compensation amount.
14. Per contra, Mrs. L. Monomala, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, inter
alia, submitted that a Memo of Understanding was executed
between the State Government, represented by the Joint
Secretary, MAHUD and the shop owners for vacating the land for
redevelopment by the State Government and the State
Government allotted shop No.7 of Ngari Dukan at Khwairamband
Bazar to R.K.Gopalsana, son of late Gulamjatsana Singh of
Moirangmayum Akham Leikai and the compensation of
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 10
Rs.57,138/- earmarked for R.K.Gopalsana remains unclaimed,
as no one has come to claim the compensation.
15. The learned Government Advocate would submit
that on 24.1.2018, a representation was received from the
petitioner claiming the compensation amount earmarked for
R.K.Gopalsana Singh and the matter was duly processed for
payment of compensation. However, during the process, it was
found that the claim made by the petitioner was likely to be
caused by mistaken identity due to the following reasons:
(i) The petitioner claims to be the granddaughter of
late R.K.Gopalsana Singh, son of
R.K.Sanatomba @ Thambalsana of Uripok
Pacahi Manak who possessed a piece of land
measuring an area of 0.02 acre under Patta
No.87/627 under C.S. Dag No.1261/1283 of
Village No.87 of Uripok.
(ii) The owner of the shop under consideration is
R.K.Gopalsana, son of R.K.Gulamjatsana
Singh of Moirangmayum Akham Leikai who
possessed a piece of land measuring an area of
0.004 hectare under Patta No.1023 (O) 10(N)
C.S. Dag No.3162(O)/130(N) of Sheet No.16,
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 11
Imphal Municipality. The State Government
signed an agreement with R.K.Gopalsana of
Moirangmayum Akham Leikai for vacating the
land and making it available to the State
Government for redevelopment.
(iii) In spite of having similar names i.e.
R.K.Gopalsana Singh, the two persons have
different father's name, address, location of land
(shop site) and area of plot.
16. The learned Government Advocate further
submitted that the shop allotted to R.K.Gopalsana of
Moirangmayum Akham Leikai is in no way related to the piece of
land covered by C.S. Dag No.1261/1263 measuring an area of
0.02 acres under Revenue Village No.87 of Imphal West Tehshil.
17. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned senior counsel for
the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is in
no way connected with the writ petition and the allotment of
shops/stalls cannot be done by the Imphal Municipal Corporation
without the approval or instructions of the Administrative
Department and Imphal Municipal Corporation has no power to
allot shop/stalls. He would submit that insofar as vacant
shops/stalls in the first floor of the three Ima Markets,
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 12
Khwairamband Bazar is concerned, no allotment order/license
has been issued as on date. Thus, a prayer has been made for
deletion of the fourth respondent from the array of parties.
18. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
19. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's
grandfather's shop cum residential structure called as Uripok
Panchi Manak in Patta No.87/627, covered by C.S. Dag
No.1261/1283 measuring an extent of 0.02 acre is situated at
Village No.87, Uripok, Imphal West District. The said structure
and other neighbouring structures were demolished by the State
authorities on 20.2.1994 claiming that the land is a Government
land.
20. Earlier the petitioner's father filed Review Misc.
Case No.13 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner (Central),
Manipur for settling the issue that the petitioner's grandfather's
patta land now inherited by the petitioner's father was not a
Government khas and after an enquiry, by the order dated
24.5.1983, the Deputy Commissioner held that the land covered
by Patta No.87/627 in C.S. Dag No.1283/1261 of Uripok is not a
Government land, but a patta land belonging to the petitioner's
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 13
father Rajkumar Sanajaoba Singh, son of late Gopalsana Singh
of Uripoi Panchai Mamang.
21. Since eviction process was taken for other
neighbouring shop sites and patta land, one of the neighbours,
namely Mairenbam Herojit Singh, filed a civil suit claiming
compensation in Original Suit No.70 of 2007 and the said suit
was dismissed on 26.11.2002 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by
the same, RFA.No.4 of 2003 has been preferred before the
Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. When the appeal was taken
up for hearing, the learned Advocate-General, on instructions
and by producing a letter dated 29.5.2008, submitted that the
Government has taken a decision to acquire the land formally
and pay the compensation to the appellant. By the judgment
dated 30.5.2008, the appeal was disposed of by directing the
State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings within a
period of two moths from the date of judgment and the same shall
be completed within a period of four months thereafter. If the
respondents fail to acquire the land and pass appropriate award
within the aforesaid period of six months, the appellant shall be
at liberty to approach the Court for restoration of the appeal.
22. It appears that on 11.6.2014, the petitioner has
submitted a representation to the Minister for Revenue,
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 14
Government of Manipur, wherein she has stated that the land
covered in C.S. Dag No.1261/1283 measuring an extent of 0.02
acre situated at Uripok Panchai Manak under Patta No.87/627
belonged to her grandfather which had already been acquired,
however, till date no compensation was paid. Therefore, she
prayed for an alternative arrangement to allot a portion of the land
covered by C.S. Dag No.737 (New) of Sheet No.XVI (New) within
Village No.87(A)-Khwai Bazar, IWT, which is now in vacant
position of the same. Since no action was taken on the
representation of the petitioner, on 5.8.2016, the petitioner
submitted a reminder representation to the
Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue, Government of Manipur.
Since the respondent authorities failed to take action on the
representations of the petitioner, she filed W.P.No.760 of 2016
before this Court. By the order dated 5.10.2016, the said writ
petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and
2 therein to consider and dispose of the representation submitted
by the petitioner on 11.6.2014 and the reminder dated 5.8.2016,
preferably within a period of one month without adverting to the
facts and issues raised.
23. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate
submitted that shop No.7 of Ngari Dukan at Khwairambam Bazar
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 15
allotted to R.K.Gopalsana son of R.K.Gulamjatsana Singh of
Moirangmayum Akham Leikai is in no way related to the piece of
land covered in C.S.Dag No.1261/1283 measuring an extent of
0.02 acres and therefore, the petitioner cannot pray for a
direction on the respondents 1 to 3 for delivery and handing over
of shop No.7 to the petitioner on the premise that the said shop
has been allotted to her late grandfather namely R.K.Gopalsana
Singh vide allotment order dated 5.2.2011.
24. As per the statement of the official respondents, the
grandfather of the petitioner namely R.K.Gopalsana Singh and
the allottee of shop No.7 of Ngari Dukan namely R.K.Gopalsana
are different persons, which will stand proved from the averments
set out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
petitioner. In paragraph 6, it has been stated as under:
"6. That it is learnt from the reliable sources that
there are many vacant Dukan plot on first floor
of Ima Keithel under the Imphal Municipal
Corporation. Hence, since the land in question
of the petitioner's grandfather measuring an
area of 0.02 acres was demolished without due
process of law and since the aforesaid shop
no.7 of Ngari Dukan at Khwairamband Bazar
and compensation amount of Rs.57,138 was
handed over to one Shri R.K.Gopalsana Singh
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 16
who is not the grandfather of the petitioner, the
present deponent is entitled to receive
adequate compensation with Dukan plot lying
vacant at Ima Keithel on first floor or any
available shop site under the Imphal Municipal
Corporation. In such a situation, the present
deponent humbly prays before the Hon'ble
High Court to direct the respondents concerned
to allot the Dukan plot lying vacant at Ima
Keithel on first floor or any available shop under
the Imphal Municipal Corporation with
adequate compensation for the ends of
justice."
25. Since the petitioner herself admitted that
R.K.Gopalsana Singh, who was allotted shop no.7 of Ngari
Dukan is not her grandfather, the plea of the petitioner that shop
no.7 of Ngari Dukan was allotted to her grandfather and
therefore, the same has to be handed over to her cannot stand
in the eye of law. However, it is clear from the records that no
alternative land, in lieu of the piece of commercial land under
Patta No.87/627 covered by C.S.Dag No.1261/1283 measuring
an area of 0.02 acre under the revenue village No.87 of Imphal
West Tehsil owned by the grandfather of the petitioner acquired
by the State respondent, has been given either to the petitioner's
grandfather or father of the petitioner or the petitioner. There is
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 17
also no whisper in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
respondents 2 and 3 qua the allotment of alternative land to the
grandfather of the petitioner.
26. Earlier when the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.850 of
2017 for the same relief for quashing of the order dated
12.5.2017, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 16.5.2019.
In paragraphs 3 to 6, this Court observed as under:
"[3] The writ petition has been filed
challenging the impugned order dated
12.05.2017 (Annexure-A/9) where under, the
representation of the petitioner dated
11.06.2014 and reminder dated 05.08.2016
was considered in the light of this Court's
order dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C)
No.760 of 2016, and the said representation
was rejected holding that the claim of the
petitioner cannot be acceded to because the
land claimed by the petitioner as her land is
a State land, and the land proposed for
allotment by the petitioner is recorded in the
name of Secretary, Planning and
Development Authority, Manipur. On that
premise, the request of the petitioner was
rejected by impugned order dated
12.05.2017 (Annexure-A/9) passed by the
Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of
Manipur.
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 18
[4] Since there involves issue on the fact as
to whether the land belongs to the authority
as specified above or to the petitioner as
claimed by the petitioner, an opportunity of
further hearing can be considered before the
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur.
[5] In view of the above, the petitioner is at
directed to pursue her remedy by filing an
application to the higher authority, namely,
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur within 4 (four) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The same
shall be considered and disposed of by the
authority within 12 (twelve) weeks thereafter.
[6] Writ petition stands disposed of as above.
The petitioner is at liberty to pursue other
remedies, if aggrieved by the order of the
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur."
27. As against the order dated 16.5.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.850 of 2017, no appeal has been preferred by either
of the parties and, as such, the order attained finality.
28. As stated supra, the petitioner has challenged the
very same order dated 12.5.2017 in this writ petition contending
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 19
that the same has been passed in violation of the order dated
24.5.1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Central),
Manipur and also the judgment of this Court dated 30.5.2008
passed in RFA No.4 of 2001. As per the said two orders, the
land in question, namely Patta No.87/627 under C.S. Dag
No.1261/1283 of Uripok, Imphal West Tahsil measuring an
extent of 0.02 acre, that belonged to the grandfather of the
petitioner is not a Government khas and it is patta land of the
petitioner's grandfather. However, in the impugned order dated
12.5.2017, in paragraph 3, it has been stated as under:
"3. Whereas, as per 1960 survey record, the
land in question which is covered by C.S.
Dag No.1261/1283 (old) under patta
No.87/627 (old) measuring 0.02 acre
situated at 87-Uripok was recorded as State
Land (Dukan) which was encroached and
possessed by Gopalsana Rajkumar S/o (L)
Sanatomba of Uripok Maning."
29. The aforesaid observation of the Deputy Secretary
(Revenue), Government of Manipur made in the impugned order
is not sustainable, in view of the finding arrived at by this Court
in the earlier paragraph of this order. As admitted by the State
respondents in the earlier proceedings before the revenue
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 20
officials and this Court, the petitioner's grandfather is the
pattadar of the land in C.S. Dag No.1261/1283 (old) under patta
No.87/627 (old) measuring 0.02 acre.
30. As could be seen from the records, narrating the
entire facts, a detailed representation dated 12.4.2021 has been
submitted by the petitioner to respondents 1 and 4 praying to allot
an alternative land/shop plot under construction by Imphal
Municipal Corporation at Sanakeithel, Lamphel as well as
compensation amount of Rs.57,138/-. According to the
petitioner, despite receipt of the said representation, no order has
been passed on it till date.
31. Since the petitioner established her grandfather's
right over the land in C.S. Dag No.1261/1283 (old) under patta
No.87/627 (old) measuring 0.02 acre and despite requests made
by the petitioner's grandfather, her father and herself, no
alternative site has been provided so far, the prayer of the
petitioner in this writ petition to set aside the impugned order
dated 12.05.2017 is genuine. Since the land/shop in question of
the petitioners' grandfather was demolished without due process
of law and the same was acquired under acquisition, the interest
of justice warrants the respondent authorities to give an
alternative land/shop to the petitioner.
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 21
32. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order dated 12.5.2017 passed by the
Deputy Secretary (Revenue) is unsustainable in the eye of law
for the reason that the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) has failed to
consider the earlier revenue records that stood in the name of
the petitioner's grandfather in respect of the land in question.
Since the petitioner established that her grandfather is the owner
of the land in C.S. Dag No.1261/1283 (old) under patta
No.87/627 (old) measuring 0.02 acre, which was later on
acquired by the respondent authorities and in lieu of acquisition
no alternative land and/or compensation paid either to the
petitioner's grandfather or her father and she being the legal heir,
now she is entitled to get the alternative shop from the
respondent authorities. In view of the above, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside. Further, the respondent authorities have
to consider allotment of alternative shop which is lying vacant at
Ima Keithel on the first floor or any available shop under the
fourth respondent with adequate compensation to the petitioner.
33. In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 12.5.2017 is set
aside.
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
P a g e | 22
(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to
allot shop lying vacant at Ima Keithel on
first floor or any available shop under the
Imphal Municipal Corporation with
adequate compensation.
(iv) The aforesaid exercise is directed to be
completed within a period four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) There will be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No.362 of 2021
