{"id":255866,"date":"2007-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-11T09:48:44","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T04:18:44","slug":"divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR         \n\n     MA No.366 Of 1988\n\n     Divisional  Forest  Officer Territorial\n\n                                           ...Petitioners\n\n                                              VERSUS\n     Fagua Sai\n                                           ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
!    Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant\/State<\/p>\n
^    Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate appears as amicus curiae<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J<\/p>\n
     Dated: 07\/08\/2007<\/p>\n
:    Order<\/p>\n
      Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30<\/a> of the Workmen’s
\n                   Compensation Act<\/a>, 1923:\n<\/p>\n
                       ORAL ORDER<\/p>\n
              (Passed on 7th August, 2007)<\/p>\n
     Heard.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-\n<\/p>\n
07-1988 passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen’s  <\/p>\n
Compensation,  Labour Court, Bilaspur, M.P.  (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as the lower Court) in case No.99-WC-Fatal\/85<\/p>\n
awarding compensation of Rs.27,165-60 along with interest<\/p>\n
@ 6% per annum from the date of accident till deposit.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Brief facts are as under:\n<\/p>\n
      The  applicant Fagua Sai being the  father  of  the<\/p>\n
deceased  Dhaneshwar Sai filed an application before  the<\/p>\n
lower  Court for compensation. Pleading in para-1 of  the<\/p>\n
application is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     _\/kus’oj  lk; iq= Qxqok lk; vukosnd ds  fu;kstu  esa
\n     lgk;d  ou ifj{ks= vf\/kdkjh] euksjk ds varxZr  dk;Zjr
\n     ,d  deZdkj Fkk ftldh e`R;q dk;Z ds nkSjku rFkk  dk;Z
\n     ls  mRiUu  nq?kZVuk esa fnukad 01-09-1984 dks  gqbZA
\n     nq?kZVuk dk laf{kIr fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS %&<\/p>\n
     Ek`rd yq[kh igkM+ ds taxy esa lksy dVkbZ ds dk;Z esa
\n     dqyh ds :Ik esa vukosnd }kjk fu;ksftr FkkA fnukad 01-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     09-1985  dks  dk;Z ds nkSjku yxHkx pkj cts  lk;a  tc
\n     o”kkZ gks jgh Fkh rc vdk’k ls fctyh fxjh ftlls  e`rd
\n     xaHkhj  :Ik ls vkgr gqvk rFkk ?kVuk LFky ij  gh  mDr
\n     nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:Ik mldh e`R;q gks xbZA <\/p>\n
(4)   The appellant\/non-applicant submitted the following<\/p>\n
reply to para-1 is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      _;g fd vkosnu i= dafMdk 1 ds laca\/k esa ;g dguk  gS
\n     fd  e`rd \/kus’oj lk; oYn Qxqok lk; tkfr daoj]  lkfdu
\n     yq[kh  eLVj jksy Oekad 13] 514@47 O- 07 esa ntZ  Fkk
\n     mls  yq[kh  12 dwi esa fMekjds’ku dk;Z  ls  lacaf\/kr
\n     ckmaM&h ykbZu ,lksy ykbZu+ dh lQkbZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk]
\n     euksjk lgk;d ifj{ks=kf\/kdkjh ds v\/khu dk;Z djk;k  tk
\n     jgk  Fkk  A brus esa fctyh oztikr ds dkj.k  nq?kZVuk
\n     LFky  ij  gh  \/kus’oj lk; dh e`R;q gks  xbZ  A  e`rd
\n     \/kus’oj  lk;  19-08-1984 ls  dk;Zjr  Fkk  mlds  igys
\n     dk;Zjr  ugh Fkk A ,oa fnukad 01-09-1984 dks  lk;adky
\n     3%30 cts ;g nq?kZVuk gqbZ ,oa mldh e`R;q gks xbZ A <\/p>\n
(5)   Recording that there was no dispute on  facts,  the<\/p>\n
lower Court framed the sole question of law as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     _D;k dkexkj _xkta fctyh fxj tkus ds dkj.k e`r gksus
\n     ls vukosnd {kfriqfrZ gsrq nk;h ugha gS \\a<\/p>\n
(6)  Taking into consideration the admitted fact that the
\ndeceased was under employment under the appellant herein,
\nthe  lower  Court placing reliance on a decision  of  the
\nPrivy  Council  in  AIR 1933 PC 225  held  that  where  a
\nworkman  while  being under employment dies  due  to  vis
\nmajor  i.e.           a natural calamity like  lightning,
\nthe employer is liable to pay compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(7)   Shri  Sanjay  S. Agrawal, learned counsel  for  the
\nappellant submitted that in order to succeed in  a  claim
\nfor  compensation in case of death resulting from injury,
\nit  has  to be established that personal injury resulting
\nin  death  was caused to the workmen by accident  arising
\nout  of  and  also in the course of his employment  .  No
\nmaterial was placed by the claimant\/non-applicant to show
\nthat  the act of lightning was an act which arose out  of
\nthe  employment,  and therefore, the  appellant  was  not
\nliable  to pay compensation. No other point was urged  in
\nthis appeal by learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(8)   Having considered the submission of Shri Sanjay  S.
\nAgrawal,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  I  have
\nperused  the  record.  Section 3<\/a>  (1)  of  the  Workmen’s
\nCompensation Act<\/a>, 1923 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “3.  Employer’s liability for compensation-  (1)  If
\n     personal  injury is caused to a workman by  accident
\n     arising  out of and in the course of his employment,
\n     (underlined  by me)his employer shall be  liable  to
\n     pay  compensation in accordance with the  provisions
\n     of this Chapter:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is thus clear that in order to succeed in a claim
\nfor  compensation  in case of death  resulting  from  the
\ninjury,  the  applicant has to prove that  not  only  the
\naccident arose out of his employment but was also in  the
\ncourse of his employment.\n<\/p>\n
(9)   Lightening  is  an act of god i.e.  vis  major.  In
\nDivisional  Controller,  KSRTC vs.  Mahadeva  Shetty  and
\nanother<\/a> (2003) 7 Supreme Court  Cases 197, the Apex Court
\ndescribed an act of God as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The expression “act of God” signifies the operation
\n     of natural forces free from human intervention, such
\n     as   lightning,  storm  etc.  It  may  include  such
\n     unexpected  occurrences of nature  as  severe  gale,
\n     snowstorms,  hurricanes, cyclones, tidal  waves  and
\n     the  like. But every unexpected wind and storm  does
\n     not operate as an excuse from liability, if there is
\n     a   reasonable  possibility  of  anticipating  their
\n     happening.  An act of God provides no excuse  unless
\n     it   is  so  unexpected  that  no  reasonable  human
\n     foresight  could  be  presumed  to  anticipate   the
\n     occurrence, having regard to the conditions of  time
\n     and  place  known  to be prevailing.  For  instance,
\n     where by experience of a number of years, preventive
\n     action  can be taken, Lord Westbury defined the  act
\n     of   God  (damnum  fatale  in  Scotch  Laws)  as  an
\n     occurrence  which  no  human foresight  can  provide
\n     against and of which human prudence is not bound  to
\n     recognize  the possibility. This appears to  be  the
\n     nearest  approach to the true meaning of an  act  of
\n     God.   Lord   Blancaburgh  spoke  of   it   as   “an
\n     irresistible and unsearchable providence  nullifying
\n     our human effort”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(10)  In  Margaret  Brooker vs. Thomas Borthwick  &  Sons
\n(Australasia),  Ltd. A.I.R. 1933 Privy Council  225,  the
\nstandard of proof required to establish liability of  the
\nemployer  to  compensate in a case of injury  by  natural
\nforce i.e. lightning their Lordships of the privy council
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
     ”  Whether  an accident arises out of the employment
\n     depends  on  the particulars facts. If a workman  is
\n     injured by some natural force such as lightning, the
\n     heat  of  the sun, or extreme cold, which in  itself
\n     has  no kind of connexion with employment, he cannot
\n     recover  compensation  unless  he  can  sufficiently
\n     associate such injury with his employment.  This  he
\n     can  do  if he can show that the employment  exposed
\n     him in a special degree to suffering such an injury.
\n     But if he is injured by contact physically with some
\n     part  of the place where he works, then, apart  from
\n     questions  of  his  own  misconduct,  he   at   once
\n     associates  the  accident with  his  employment  and
\n     nothing further need be considered. So that  if  the
\n     roofs  or walls fall upon him, or he slips upon  the
\n     premises,there is no need to make further inquiry as
\n     to why the accident happened.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(11)  In  State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Prasad  and  another<\/a>
\n(2001)  9  Supreme Court Cases 395 while considering  the
\nclaim made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act<\/a>, 1923 for
\ncompensation  in respect of death due to  lightning,  the
\nApex Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The  accident, it is stated, took place on  account
\n     of  lightning. The contention put forth on behalf of
\n     the  appellant is that the mishap of death  of  Smt.
\n     Gita  due  to  lightning  is  an  act  of  God  and,
\n     therefore,  it  is  not liable to pay  compensation.
\n     This  contention has been rejected not only  by  the
\n     Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation but also  by
\n     the learned Single Judge in appeal and thereafter by
\n     a Division Bench in a further appeal. The view taken
\n     is  that the concept of the liability under the  Act
\n     is  wide  enough  to  cover a case  of  this  nature
\n     inasmuch  as  death  had taken place  arising  as  a
\n     result  of accident in the course of employment.  It
\n     is,  no  doubt true that accident must have a casual
\n     connection with the employment and arise out of  it.
\n     If  the  workman is injured as a result  of  natural
\n     force  such  as  lightning though in itself  has  no
\n     connection   with   employment,  she   can   recover
\n     compensation by showing that such employment exposed
\n     her to such injury. In this case the finding is that
\n     the said Smt. Gita was working on the site and would
\n     not  have  been exposed to such hazard of  lightning
\n     striking her had she not been working so.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(12) In Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and another
\nvs.  Francis De<\/a> costa and another (1996) 6 Supreme  Court
\nCases  1,  the Apex Court was considering the  provisions
\ncontained  in  the section 2<\/a> (8) of the Employees’  State
\nInsurance Act<\/a>, 1948 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     ”  2.  (8)  `  employment injury’ means  a  personal
\n     injury  to  an  employee caused by  accident  or  an
\n     occupational  disease arising  out  of  and  in  the
\n     course   of   his  employment,  being  an  insurable
\n     employment,  whether  the  accident  occurs  or  the
\n     occupational disease is contracted within or outside
\n     the territorial limits of India; “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In  the  case  of  Dover Navigation  Co.  Ltd.  vs.
\nIsabella Craig [1940 AC 190: (1939) 4 ALL ER 558 HL],  it
\nwas observed by Lord Wright that-\n<\/p>\n
     “Nothing  could  be simpler than the words  `arising
\n     out  of and in the course of the employment’. It  is
\n     clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled.
\n     What arises `in the course’ of the employment is  to
\n     be  distinguished  from  what  arises  `out  of  the
\n     employment’.  The  former  words  relate   to   time
\n     conditioned  by reference to the man’s service,  the
\n     latter to causality. Not every accident which occurs
\n     to  a  man  during  the  time  when  he  is  on  his
\n     employment- that is, directly or indirectly  engaged
\n     on  what  he  is employed to do – gives a  claim  to
\n     compensation,  unless  it also  arises  out  of  the
\n     employment.  Hence the section imports a distinction
\n     which it does not define. The language is simple and
\n     unqualified.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(13)  The  Apex Court laid down the following principles-
\nupon proof of which a employee can succeed in a claim for
\ncompensation  in case of injury resulting from  accident,
\nit was held that in order to succeed, it has to be proved
\nby  the employee that (1) there was an accident, (2)  the
\naccident had a causal connection with the employment  and
\n(3) the accident must have been suffered in the course of
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
     The  words “arising out of and in the course of  his
\nemployment”  used in section-2(8) of the  Employee  State
\nInsurance  Act<\/a>,  1948  are  in  pari  materia  with   the
\nprovision  contained in the section-3(9) of the Workmen’s
\nCompensation  Act<\/a>,  1923 and, therefore,  the  principles
\nlaid down by the Apex Court can be applied to the present
\ncase also.\n<\/p>\n
(14) Applying the principles laid down by their Lordships
\nof  the  Privy Council as also by the Apex Court, I  find
\nthat  it  is  an  admitted fact that Dhaneshwar  Sai  was
\nworking  in  the course of his employment when  lightning
\nstruck at 4 P.M. Since Dhaneshwar Sai was working in  the
\nopen field while it was raining, the nature of employment
\nexposed  Dhaneshwar  to such hazards  of  lightning.  The
\nconcept  of  liability  under the Workmen’s  Compensation
\nAct<\/a>,  1923 is wide enough to cover a case of this  nature
\nsince  the  accident  had  causal  connection  with   the
\nemployment and also arose out of it because if he had not
\nbeen  working  in  the  open while  it  was  raining  the
\nlightning could not have struck him.\n<\/p>\n
(15)  In  this  view  of  the matter,  no  illegality  or
\nmanifest error of law is seen in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
(16)  In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit
\nis dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(17)  Copy  of  this  order  be  sent  forthwith  to  the
\nCommissioner  for Workmen’s Compensation,  Labour  Court,
\nBilaspur   for   releasing  the  amount  of  compensation
\ndeposited by the appellant, in favour of the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
(18)  The valuable assistance rendered by Shri P.S.Koshy,
\nlearned counsel, who appeared as amicus curiae as also by
\nShri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant
\nis acknowledged.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No.366 Of 1988 Divisional Forest Officer Territorial …Petitioners VERSUS Fagua Sai …Respondents ! Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant\/State ^ Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate appears as amicus curiae Hon’ble Shri Dilip […]<\/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-255866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDivisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-11T04:18:44+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T04:18:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1993,\"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\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T04:18:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 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":"Divisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-11T04:18:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T04:18:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007"},"wordCount":1993,"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\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007","name":"Divisional Forest Officer ... vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T04:18:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-vs-fagua-sai-on-7-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divisional Forest Officer … vs Fagua Sai on 7 August, 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\/255866","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=255866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}