{"id":237084,"date":"2007-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-23T23:11:44","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T17:41:44","slug":"parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n       WP No 1571 of 2006\n\n       Parvatia\n\n                           ...Petitioner\n\n                               VERSUS\n\n\n       1 Padmini\n\n       2 Geeta devi\n\n       3 Darupadi Bai\n\n       4 Jankibai\n\n       5 Renuka\n\n       6 Hembai\n\n       7 Presiding Officer Polling Booth No 114\n\n       8 Presiding Officer Polling Booth No 115\n\n       9 Returning Officer Cum Nayab Tahsildar\n\n       10 Sub Divisional Officer\n\n       11 M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer\n\n                           ...Respondents\n\n!      Shri Rajesh Pandey Advocate with Shri Rakesh Pandey Advocate for the petitioner\n\n^      Shri B D Guru Advocate for respondent no 1\n\n       Shri Utkarsh Verma Deputy Govt Advocate for the respondent no 10 and 11\n\n       HONBLE JUSTICE SHRI SATISH K AGNIHOTRI      \n\n       Dated: 17\/04\/2007\n\n:      Order\n\n\n\n       WRIT  PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226\/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION  OF        \n       INDIA  FOR  ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN  THE  NATURE  OF        \n       MANDAMUS\/CERTIORARY  ETC.  OR DIRECTION\/ORDER  IN  THE  LIKE          \n       NATURE ETC. \n\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>            (Passed on  17th day of April, 2007)<\/p>\n<p>  1.   The  petitioner  is  the  elected  Sarpanch  of  Gram<br \/>\n       Panchayat Govinvan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur in the<br \/>\n       election held on 15.01.2005, after drawing a  lot  on<br \/>\n       18.01.2005 by the Returning Officer, as the petitioner and<br \/>\n       the respondent no. 1 secured equal number of votes i.e. 365-\n<\/p>\n<p>       365.<\/p>\n<p>2.   The respondent no. 1 filed election petition under the<br \/>\nprovisions of section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram<br \/>\nSwaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the<br \/>\nAdhiniyam, 1993) on 21.2.2005 before the Specified Officer<br \/>\ni.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur.<br \/>\nThe petitioner filed her written statement to the election<br \/>\npetition and submitted specifically that the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe respondent no. 1 had secured equal votes and with the<br \/>\nconsent of respondent no. 1, the result was declared on<br \/>\naccount of draw of lots. Respondent no. 1 did not raise any<br \/>\nobjection to the procedure of draw of lots. Thereafter, the<br \/>\nSpecified officer, without framing issues and without<br \/>\nconducting the trial of the case, directed for recounting of<br \/>\nvotes. The said order was impugned in W.P. No. 3187 of 2006<br \/>\n(Parvatia Vs. Padmini &amp; Others). This Court, vide order<br \/>\ndated 31.8.2005, set aside the order passed by the Specified<br \/>\nOfficer and directed the Specified officer to proceed with<br \/>\nthe matter and decide the same after giving opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing to the parties to adduce their evidence and cross<br \/>\nexamine the witnesses of the other parties. The Sub<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, thereafter, framed issues and examined<br \/>\nthe evidence adduced by both the parties and after<br \/>\nconsidering, came to the conclusion that the son of the<br \/>\npetitioner congratulated the son of the respondent no. 1<br \/>\nwhich led into victory procession on the basis that counting<br \/>\nslips of polling station no. 114 and 115 was not given to<br \/>\nall the agents except to the son of the petitioner.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer directed recounting<br \/>\nof votes polled in polling station no. 114 and 115 of Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat Govinvan vide order dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure<br \/>\nP\/1)\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned<br \/>\norder, the petitioner vide this petition has, challenged the<br \/>\nlegality and validity of the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that the Specified Officer has<br \/>\ndirected recounting of votes without any application made<br \/>\nfor the same during counting of votes before the appropriate<br \/>\nauthority. The order passed by the Specified authority is<br \/>\ncontrary to the principles of recounting of votes as laid<br \/>\ndown by the Supreme Court in various cases. The respondent<br \/>\nno. 1 has acquiesced for re-counting of votes as respondent<br \/>\nagreed for declaration of result by draw of lots without any<br \/>\ndemur. The petition ought to have been dismissed on the<br \/>\nground of lack of material facts and proper pleadings<br \/>\nregarding irregularities and illegalities committed in the<br \/>\ncounting of votes. The verification of the election petition<br \/>\nwas also not in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Shri B.D.Guru, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent no. 1 would submit that the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the verification of the election petition<br \/>\nwas not in accordance with law, could not be permitted to be<br \/>\nraised at this stage when the petitioner has not raised the<br \/>\nsaid ground in the election petition. Secondly, the ground<br \/>\nof lack of material facts was also not raised in the<br \/>\nelection petition seeking for dismissal of the election<br \/>\npetition. On other grounds it was contended that the<br \/>\nsufficient opportunity of hearing was not given to the<br \/>\nrespondents to raise the issue, and even otherwise the<br \/>\nrespondent no. 1 is not debarred from raising issue of re-<br \/>\ncounting of votes after the result by draw of lots has been<br \/>\ndeclared.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nparties, perused the pleadings and documents appended<br \/>\nthereto. The question of maintainability of election<br \/>\npetition on account of infraction of Rule 5(a) and (c) of<br \/>\nC.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and<br \/>\nDisqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8220;the Rules, 1995&#8221;) was not raised before the<br \/>\nSpecified Officer. The verification was not in accordance<br \/>\nwith law was also not raised either before the Specified<br \/>\nOfficer or in the pleadings before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The respondent no. 1 in her election petition has<br \/>\npleaded the material facts as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;6-  ;g  fd  ;kfpdkdrhZ rFkk mlds leFkZdksa  ds  }kjk<br \/>\n       fot;  tqywl esa fudy tkus ds ckn vukosfndk  dzekad  1<br \/>\n       ijcfr;k ds }kjk vius iq+= lqdnsoizlkn tks fd xzk- ia-<br \/>\n       xksfoanou  dk  iwoZ  ljiap Fkk mldh  enn  ls  ihBklhu<br \/>\n       vf\/kdkjh vukosnd dzekad 7 ,oa 8 ls lkaBxkaB  dj  fy;k<br \/>\n       x;k  ftlds  pyrs  mDr  ihBklhu vf\/kdkfj;ksa  ds  }kjk<br \/>\n       lgk;d  fuokZpu vf\/kdkjh fcykbZx&lt;+ ds le{k  xyr  x.kuk<br \/>\n       i=d  izLrqr  djrs  gq;s ernku dsUnz dzazekd  114  esa<br \/>\n       ;kfpdkdrhZ  dks  159 ds ctk; 2 er de  djds  157  oksV<br \/>\n       izkIr  djuk crk fn;k x;k gS rFkk voS\/k er 35 ds LFkku<br \/>\n       ij  2  er  c&lt;kdj 37 er vafdr dj fn;k x;k gSA blh  rjg<br \/>\n       ernku  dsUnz dzekad 115 esa vukosfndk dekad 1 ijcfr;k<br \/>\n       dks  izkIr  169  oksV ds LFkku ij 170 oksV  crkdj  ,d<br \/>\n       oksV  vf\/kd c&lt;k fn;k x;k gS rFkk voS\/k erksa dh la[;k<br \/>\n       41  Fkh mls 1 oksV de djds 40 oksV vafdr dj fn;k  x;k<br \/>\n       vkSj  bl  rjg  ;kfpdkdrhZ  rFkk  vukosfndk  dzekad  1<br \/>\n       ijcfr;k  dks  cjkcj cjkcj 365 &amp; 365 oksV izkIr  gksus<br \/>\n       dh  xyr  ,oa &quot;kM;a= iw.kZ tkudkjh rFkk     x.kuk  i=d<br \/>\n       izLrqr  dj fn;k x;kA ftlds vk\/kkj ij fnukad 18-1-2005<br \/>\n       dks  ;kfpdkdrhZ vkSj vukosfndk dzekad  1  ijcfr;k  ds<br \/>\n       e\/;  Vkl }kjk pquko djkus dh dk;Zokgh djrsa gq;s ;gka<br \/>\n       ij  Hkh &quot;kM;a= iw.kZ dk;Zokgh fd;k x;k vkSj vukosfndk<br \/>\n       ijcfr;k   dks  Vkl  esa  thruk  crk  fn;k  x;k   tcfd<br \/>\n       ;kfpdkdrhZ dks ijcfr;k ds uke ls fudyk gqvk  fpV  dks<br \/>\n       ugha  crk;k x;k vkSj uk gh ;kfpdkdrhZ ds uke  ds  fpV<br \/>\n       dks  crk;k x;kA bl rjg vukosfndk dzekad 1 ijcfr;k tks<br \/>\n       fd  3 oksV ls gkj pqdh Fkh mls fdlh rjg ftrkus dh xjt<br \/>\n       ls    ?kksj &quot;kM;a= iw.kZ dk;Zokgh fd;k x;k gS tks  fd<br \/>\n       iw.kZr% voS\/kkfud d`R; gSA<br \/>\n       8-  ;g fd ernku dsUnz dzekad 115 esa ihBklhu vf\/kdkjh<br \/>\n       }kjk  Lor%  ,d  QthZ oksV Mkyk x;k gS vkSj  vukosfndk<br \/>\n       ijcfr;k  dks  ftrkus dk iz;kl fd;k  x;k  gSA      mDr<br \/>\n       QthZ er vxe oYn tksfgr tkfr dykj ds uke dk gS A<br \/>\n       9-   ;g  fd xzk- ia- xksfonaou ds ljiap in gsrq  Mkys<br \/>\n       x;s  er  i=ksa  dh iquZx.kuk ,oa tkap  fd;k  tk;  rks<br \/>\n       ;kfpdkdrhZ 3 oksV ls vo&#039;; thr gkfly djsxhA&quot;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  8.   The   petitioner,  in  her  written  statement  dated<br \/>\n       23.3.2005 (Annexure P\/3) has not objected to lack  of<br \/>\n       material facts the defects in verification. The evidences<br \/>\n       were examined. On perusal of the election petition, it is<br \/>\n       evident that the respondent no. 1 has pleaded material facts<br \/>\n       and particulars with regard to relief for recounting of<br \/>\n       votes. So far as the defect in verification is concerned,<br \/>\n       that was neither raised in the written statement filed by<br \/>\n       the petitioner nor in the petition filed herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Law in regard to counting of votes is well settled. The<br \/>\nSupreme Court, in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1259709\/\">P.K.K.Shamsudeen, v. K.A.M<br \/>\nMappillai Mohindeen,<\/a> (1989) 1 SCC 526, observed as under  :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;13. Thus the settled position of law is that<br \/>\n          the    justification   for   an   order   for<br \/>\n          examination of ballot papers and  recount  of<br \/>\n          votes is not to be derived from hindsight and<br \/>\n          by the result of the recount of votes. On the<br \/>\n          contrary, the justification for an  order  of<br \/>\n          recount  of votes should be provided  by  the<br \/>\n          material placed by an election petitioner  on<br \/>\n          the threshold before an order for recount  of<br \/>\n          votes  is actually made. The reason for  this<br \/>\n          salutary rule is that the preservation of the<br \/>\n          secrecy   of   the  ballot  is  a  sacrosanct<br \/>\n          principle which cannot be lightly or  hastily<br \/>\n          broken  unless  there is prima facie  genuine<br \/>\n          need   for   it.  The  right  of  a  defeated<br \/>\n          candidate  to  assail  the  validity  of   an<br \/>\n          election result and seek recounting of  votes<br \/>\n          has to be subject to the basic principle that<br \/>\n          the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in  a<br \/>\n          democracy  and  hence  unless  the   affected<br \/>\n          candidate  is able to allege and substantiate<br \/>\n          in  acceptable measure by means  of  evidence<br \/>\n          that  a prima facie case of a high degree  of<br \/>\n          probability existed for the recount of  votes<br \/>\n          being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the<br \/>\n          interests  of  justice, a Tribunal  or  court<br \/>\n          should not order the recount of votes.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  10.  In cas of <a href=\"\/doc\/249842\/\">M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy,<\/a>(2004) 6 SCC<br \/>\n       341, the Supreme Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;28.  The law operating in the field  is  no<br \/>\n          longer   res  integra.  Inspection  of  ballot<br \/>\n          papers  can be ordered when in the  facts  and<br \/>\n          circumstances  obtaining  in  the  case,   the<br \/>\n          Tribunal  finds it necessary to so  direct  in<br \/>\n          the   interest   of  justice.  Discovery   and<br \/>\n          inspection of documents with which  the  civil<br \/>\n          court is invested with power under the Code of<br \/>\n          Civil  Procedure when trying  a  suit  may  be<br \/>\n          applied but such an order would not be granted<br \/>\n          as  a  matter of course having regard  to  the<br \/>\n          insistence  upon  the secrecy  of  the  ballot<br \/>\n          papers. Such an inspection may be ordered when<br \/>\n          two conditions are fulfilled:\n<\/p>\n<p>          (  i ) that the petition for setting aside  an<br \/>\n          election contains an adequate statement of the<br \/>\n          material facts on which the petitioner  relies<br \/>\n          in support of his case; and<br \/>\n          (  ii  ) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied<br \/>\n          that in order to decide the dispute and to  do<br \/>\n          complete    justice   between   the    parties<br \/>\n          inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  11.  In  case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of  Bihar<br \/>\n       (2004) 6 SCC, the Supreme Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;20.  It  is  well settled that an  order  of  re-<br \/>\n          counting of votes can be passed when the following<br \/>\n          conditions are fulfilled:\n<\/p>\n<p>          (i)  a prima facie case;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) pleading of material facts stating irregularities in<br \/>\ncounting of votes;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)     a roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made<br \/>\nwhile directing re-counting of votes; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) an objection to the said effect has been taken recourse<br \/>\nto.\n<\/p>\n<p>          21. The requirement of maintaining the secrecy  of<br \/>\n          ballot  papers must also be kept in view before  a<br \/>\n          re-counting  can  be directed.  Narrow  margin  of<br \/>\n          votes  between  the  returned  candidate  and  the<br \/>\n          election  petitioner  by  itself  would   not   be<br \/>\n          sufficient  for  issuing  a  direction   for   re-<br \/>\n          counting.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  12.  In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1146043\/\">Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh<\/a> (2006) 4<br \/>\n       SCC 542, the Supreme Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;22.  The  said dicta has been reiterated  in<br \/>\n           <a href=\"\/doc\/249842\/\">M.Chinnasamy   v.   K.C.Palanisamy,   Hoshila<br \/>\n           Tiwari<\/a>   v.   <a href=\"\/doc\/1027882\/\">State  of  Bihar   and   Tanaji<br \/>\n           Ramchandra  Nimhan v. Swati  Vinayak  Nimhan.<br \/>\n           The<\/a>  reason  why  we  referred  to  the  said<br \/>\n           decision is that at every level, in case of a<br \/>\n           challenge  to an election, pleadings  of  the<br \/>\n           parties  have been held to play a significant<br \/>\n           role.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  13.  The decision of this Court in Ramdeo Ram Vs. Vijaynath<br \/>\n       and others, 2007(1) CJLJ 215, relied on by the learned<br \/>\n       counsel appearing for the petitioner is of no help to the<br \/>\n       present case as in the present case, no objection was raised<br \/>\n       at any point of time either in the election petition or in<br \/>\n       the writ petition with regard to lack of material facts or<br \/>\n       incomplete verification as per law.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  It is clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin various cases cited above that the election petitioner<br \/>\nmust prove proper pleadings in order to seek relief of<br \/>\nrecounting of votes. In the present case, on perusal of the<br \/>\nwrit petition, it appears that the petitioner has<br \/>\nsufficiently pleaded the material facts for grant of relief<br \/>\nof recounting of votes.\n<\/p>\n<p>  15.  I  am  of  the considered opinion that the  order  of<br \/>\n       recounting of votes directed by the Specified Officer on the<br \/>\n       basis of pleadings and on the evidences adduced by the<br \/>\n       parties is just and proper and needs no interference by this<br \/>\n       Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No 1571 of 2006 Parvatia &#8230;Petitioner VERSUS 1 Padmini 2 Geeta devi 3 Darupadi Bai 4 Jankibai 5 Renuka 6 Hembai 7 Presiding Officer Polling Booth No 114 8 Presiding Officer [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2000,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007"},"wordCount":2000,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007","name":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T17:41:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvatia-vs-m-d-kanvre-sub-divisional-officer-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parvatia vs M D Kanvre Sub Divisional Officer on 17 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}