Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. Versus Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. Versus Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


1
REPORTABLE 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6778 ­ 6780 OF 2022
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors.     ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6781 ­ 6783 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir   and   Ladakh,   at
Jammu in respective writ petitions preferred by the private
respondents   herein   –   original   petitioners   whereby   the
appellants herein – original respondents have been directed
to   determine   the   compensation   of   the   acquired   lands   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Right   to   Fair
Compensation   and   Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,
Rehabilitation   and   Resettlement   Act,   2013   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   Act,   2013”),   the   appellants   herein   –
2
original respondents have preferred present appeals. 
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nut­shell are as
under:
2.1 That,   the   lands   in   question   were   sought   to   be   acquired
under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “State   Act   of   1990”).   The
notification under Section 4 of the State Act of 1990 was
issued on 15.11.2016. The lands in question were sought to
be acquired for the appellants – beneficiary. That thereafter
declaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 was
issued on 12.11.2018. The land owners – original petitioners
filed   the   respective   petitions   before   the   High   Court
challenging the proceedings initiated under the J&K Land
Acquisition Act SVT 1990 with the following prayers: ­ 
A. CERTIORARI; so as to quash the proceedings initiated
by respondents u/s 4,6,9 & 9­A and Section 17 of J &
K Land Acquisition Act, SVT 1990 for the acquisition of
land for relocation of petroleum Depots from Channi
Himmat near Railway Station to Villages Pargalta and
Khana Chargal, Tehsil and District Jammu. 
B. MANDAMUS;   so   as   to   command   and   direct   the
3
respondents   to   de­notify   the   land   sought   to   be
acquired   in   villages   Pargalta   and   Kanna   Chargal,
Tehsil and District Jammu for re­location of Petroleum
Depots. 
C. PROHIBITION; so as to restrain the respondents from
taking   the   possession   of   land   falling   under   various
Khasra numbers of aforesaid villages u/s 17 of J&K
Land Acquisition Act. 
2.2 That, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the
High Court, the State Act of 1990 came to be repealed. When
the aforesaid writ petitions came up for hearing before the
High Court, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners would
be   satisfied,   if   instead   of   quashing   the   land   acquisition
proceeding,   determination   of   compensation   is   made   in
accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act,
2013.
2.3 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners
before the High Court that as neither the possession of the
lands in question have been taken over nor the award has
been declared even under the State Act of 1990, the original
4
writ petitioners shall be entitled to compensation of acquired
land in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(1) of the
Act, 2013.
2.4 The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the appellants on the
ground   that   as   the   acquisition   proceedings   have   been
initiated under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1) of the
Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. It was submitted on
behalf of the appellants that in view of Section 6 of the
General   Clauses   Act,   1897   read   with   sub­clause   (13)   of
Clause 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal
of Difficulties) Order, 2019 issued vide S.O. No.3912(E) of
2019   dated   30.10.2019   of   the  Ministry   of   Home   Affairs
(Department of J & K Affairs) the repeal of the Act shall not
affect the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired,
accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that any
investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted,
continued   and   enforced   as   if   Jammu   &   Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019 has not been passed. Therefore, it
was submitted on behalf of the appellants that award in
respect of the acquisition in question has to be made in
accordance with the provisions of the State Act of 1990 and
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 would not be applicable.
5
2.5 By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of
the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has
directed the appellants – original respondents to determine
the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with
the provisions of the Act, 2013.
2.6 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the
appellants to determine and pay the compensation of the
acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
2013,   the   original   respondents   –   appellants   herein,   for
whose benefit the lands have been acquired, have preferred
the present appeals.
3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has
erred in directing the appellants to determine and pay the
compensation under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act,
2013.
3.1 It is further submitted that in view of Clause 2(13) of the
Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
6
the rights, liabilities, and obligations acquired, accrued or
incurred under the Repeal Law vis. State Act of 1990 stands
saved and would continue under the said Act.
3.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor
General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even
otherwise considering Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, with
respect to the acquisition under the State Act of 1990, Act,
2013  shall   not  be  applicable  at  all.  It   is   submitted   that
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable only in a case
where   the   acquisition   under   the   provisions   of   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 have been initiated. Heavy reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore
Development   Authority   &   Anr.   vs.   The   State   of
Karnataka & Ors.  rendered in M.A. No.1614­1616 of 2019
in M.A. No.1346­1348 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.7661­
7663 of 2018.
3.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor
General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even
otherwise the High Court has erred in holding that as the
award was not declared and the possession was not taken
over, Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.
7
3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to
appreciate that the award could not be passed on account of
stay order granted by the High Court. It is submitted that
therefore non­passing of the award which was due to the
stay granted by the High Court cannot be a ground to apply
Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the
present appeals. 
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by learned Counsel
Sunil   Fernandes   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondents
herein – original writ petitioners.
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   as   neither   the
possession of the lands in question have been taken over nor
the   compensation   has   been   paid   as   the   award   was   not
declared, no error has been committed by the High Court in
directing to pay the compensation under the Act, 2013.
4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that in the present case
neither   Clause   2(13)   of   the   Jammu   &   Kashmir
8
Reorganization   (Removal   of   Difficulties)   Order,   2019   nor
section   6   of   the   General   Clauses   Act,   1897   shall   be
applicable.
4.3 It is submitted that reliance placed by the appellants on the
decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development
Authority   &   Anr.   (Supra)  is   wholly   misconceived,   as   the
same shall not apply to the facts of the instant case. It is
submitted that in the said judgment it was held that the
repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not affect /
lapse the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Bangalore   Development   Act,   1976,   inasmuch   as   the
provisions of the former Act had been ‘incorporated’ into the
latter Act and therefore, had independent existence. It is
submitted that in the said decision the view taken by this
Court was on the premise that since the governing statute,
i.e.,   the   Bangalore   Development  Act,   1976   had   not  been
repealed, there was no occasion of applicability of the Act,
2013. It is submitted that in the present case, J & K Act
which was  pari materia  to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
stands repealed and Act, 2013 has come into force with
respect   to   the   J   &   K   with   effect   from   31.10.2019   on
enactment of  the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization  Act,
9
2019.
4.4 It is further submitted that in view of the plain language
implied in Section 24 of the Act, 2013 i.e., if at the time of
commencement of the Act, 2013, no award has been made
under the old Act, then all provisions under the new Act
(Act, 2013) relating to determination of compensation shall
apply. It is submitted that therefore the intention  of the
legislature to ensure that the proceedings under the old Act
did not lapse merely due to the coming into force of the new
Act.  However,  at the  same  time,  the  intention  is  to  give
benefit of the liberal provisions of the Act, 2013 to the land
owners as well. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
has rightly held that in case an award has been made under
the J&K Act before its repeal, then the right of compensation
of the land owners would certainly have been determined in
accordance with the J & K Act only. However, where no
award has been passed under the J & K Act before its repeal
and   consequently   no   right   to   compensation   had   been
matured, neither clause 2(13) of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization   (Removal   of   Difficulties)   Order,   2019   nor
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act shall be employed to
nullify the express provision contained in Section 24(1) of
10
the Act, 2013 insofar as it provides that where no award is
passed   under   the   old   /   repealed   Act,   the   provisions   of
enhanced compensation under the Act, 2013 would apply
while not affecting the land acquisition proceedings under
the old / repealed law as such.
4.5 Now, so far as non­passing of the award on account of the
stay order dated 14.12.2018 is concerned, it is submitted
that as such the order dated 14.12.2018 was only directing
the   parties   to   maintain   status   quo   with   regard   to   the
possession and the High Court did not pass any interim
order restraining the authorities from declaring the award. It
is submitted that even the order of status quo was in some
of the writ petitions and did not extend to other lands. It is
submitted that despite the same, no award was passed.
4.6 In the alternative it is submitted by the learned Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that
before the High Court the land acquisition proceedings were
challenged on number of grounds and to pay the enhanced
amount of compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act,
2013 was an alternative prayer due to non­declaration of the
award   under   Section   11   of   the   State   Act   of   1990.   It   is
11
submitted that in view of the alternative relief prayed for by
the original writ petitioners, the High Court did not go into
the merits of the submissions of the original writ petitioners
with respect to quashing of the land acquisition proceedings
and   therefore,   to   that   extent   the   issue   is   yet   to   be
considered. It is submitted that in case this Court takes the
view   that   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   2013   shall   not   be
applicable and that the original land owners are not entitled
to enhanced compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act,
2013, in that case, the matters may be remanded to the
High Court to decide the writ petitions on other grounds.
5. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Shri   Sunil
Fernandes,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents herein – original writ petitioners.
5.1 Having gone through the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court, the High Court has directed
the appellants herein to determine and pay to the original
owners the compensation under the Act, 2013 on the ground
that   no   award   under   the   State   Act   of   1990   has   been
published   and/or   declared.   While   passing   the   impugned
12
common   judgment  and   order,   the   High   Court   has   relied
upon Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(a) of the
Act, 2013 reads as under: 
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases.­ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this   Act,   in   any   case   of   land   acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,­
(a) where no award under section 11 of the
said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then,
all   provisions   of   this   Act   relating   to   the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition
Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.”
On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, it
provides   that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   Act,
2013, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated
under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894,   where   no   award
under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been
made,   then,   all   provisions   of   Act,   2013   relating   to   the
determination of the compensation shall apply. Section 24(1)
13
of   the   Act,   2013   speaks   about   the   land   acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In   the   present   case,   the   lands   in   question   have   been
acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition
Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands in question
is not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It cannot be
disputed   that   prior   to   the   enactment   of   the   Jammu   &
Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the
Jammu & Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far
as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on
the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act,
2019, Act, 2013 shall be made applicable. It is the case on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that as the provisions of
the   State   Act   of   1990   are  pari   materia  to   the   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the
Act,   2013   shall   be   applicable.   The   aforesaid   cannot   be
accepted. The language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is
very   clear   and   unambiguous.   It   talks   about   the   land
acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894   only   and   it   does   not   speak   about   any   other  pari
materia provision of different statutes. 
14
5.2 At   this   stage   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. (Supra) is required
to   be   referred   to.   In   the   said   decision   it   is   specifically
observed and held that the Act, 2013 repeals only the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and not any other Central or State
enactment dealing with the acquisition and therefore, what
is   sought   to   be   saved   under   the   Act,   2013   is   only
acquisitions   which   have   been   initiated   under   the   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions which have
been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.
In paragraphs 19 and 23, this Court had observed and held
as under:
“19. The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and
not any other Central or State enactment dealing
with acquisition. Therefore, what is sought to be
saved under Section 24 of the 2013 Act is only
acquisitions which had been initiated under the LA
Act and 13 not those acquisitions which had been
initiated   under   any   other   Central   or   State
enactment. The expression contained in Section 24
of   the   LA   Act   cannot   be   given   extensive
interpretation by adding words into the provision,
in the absence of the provision itself giving rise to
any such implication. We are of the view that 2013
15
Act would not regulate the acquisition proceedings
made under the BDA Act.
23. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of
the High Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was
not justified in holding that the provisions of LA Act
that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the
nature   of   legislation   by   reference.   The   learned
Judge has also erred in holding that in view of the
repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act,
the   corresponding   provisions   of   2013   Act   would
regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act
and   that   this   would   include   determination   of
compensation in accordance with 2013 Act. It is
hereby   clarified   that   since   LA   Act   has   been
incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are
applicable, the provisions of 15 2013 Act are not
applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA
Act. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde
(supra)   and   other   connected   matters   is   hereby
overruled.”
In view of the above binding decision of this Court, we
are of the firm view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall
not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J
& K Act, 1990.
16
5.3 Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019
read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which
the   rights,   liabilities,   privileges,   obligations   acquired,
accrued, or incurred under the repealed laws stands saved
and would be continued under those Acts (in the present
case the Act, 1990), it is to be noted that Order, 2019 is
subsequent to the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is to be presumed
that while enacting the Order, 2019 and providing Clause
2(13) of the Order, 2019, the legislature was conscious of the
provisions   of   the   earlier   Act   (Act,   2013).   Under   the
circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquired under
the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall
not be applicable at all.
5.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some of the
writ petitions there was an order of status quo may be with
respect   to   the   possession.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   the
notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6
of   the   State   Act   of   1990   was   a   common   notification   /
declaration. Therefore, there was impediment on the part of
the   authority   in   declaring   the   award.   The   original   writ
petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit of the order of
status quo obtained by some of the original writ petitioners
17
and thereafter to contend that as the award has not been
declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of
compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. In the
case   of  Indore   Development   Authority   Vs.   Manoharlal
and Ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129, it is observed and held by this
Court that: ­  
(i) Lapse of acquisition takes place only in case of default by
the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by any other
reason or order of the court;
(ii) If it was not possible for the acquiring authorities, for any
reason not attributable to them or the Government, to take
requisite steps, the period has to be excluded;
(iii) In case the authorities are prevented by the court's order,
obviously, as per the interpretation of the provisions such
period has to be excluded;
(iv) The intent of the Act, 2013 is not to benefit landowners
only. The provisions of Section 24 by itself do not intend to
confer benefits on litigating parties as such, while as per
Section 114 of the Act, 2013 and Section 6 of the General
Clauses   Act   the   case   has   to   be   litigated   as   per   the
provisions of the Act, 1894;
(v) It is not the intendment of the Act, 2013 that those who
have assailed the acquisition process should get benefits of
higher compensation as contemplated under Section 24;
(vi) It   is   not   intended   by   the   provisions   that   in   case,   the
persons,   who   have   litigated   and   have   obtained   interim
orders from the Civil Courts by filing suits or from the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should have the
benefits of the provisions of the Act, 2013 except to the
extent specifically provided under the Act, 2013;
(vii) In   cases   where   some   landowners   have   chosen   to   take
recourse   to   litigation   and   have   obtained   interim   orders
restraining taking of possession or orders of status quo, as
a   matter   of   practical   reality   it   is   not   possible   for   the
18
authorities   or   the   Government   to   take   possession   or   to
make   payment   of   compensation   to   the   landowners.   In
several instances, such interim orders also have impeded
the making of an award;
(viii) The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be decided
on its own merits and the benefits of Section 24(2) should
not be available to the litigants in a straightjacket manner.
In case there is no interim order, they can get the benefits
they   are   entitled   to,   not   otherwise.   Delays   and   dilatory
tactics and sometimes wholly frivolous pleas cannot result
in   benefitting   the   landowners   under   sub­section   (1)   of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013;
(ix) Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit action
on the part of the authorities to proceed further, when a
challenge to acquisition is pending;
(x) Interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of the
landowners   would   cause   a   complete   restraint   on   the
authorities to proceed further to issue declaration;
(xi) When the authorities are disabled from performing duties
due to impossibility, it would be a sufficient  excuse for
them to save them from rigour of provisions of Section 24. A
litigant may have a good or a bad cause, be right or wrong.
But he cannot be permitted to take advantage of a situation
created by him by way of an interim order passed in his
favour by the Court at his instance. Although provision of
Section 24 does not discriminate between landowners, who
are litigants or non­litigants and treat them differently with
respect to the same acquisition, it is necessary to view all of
them   from   the   stand   point   of   the   intention   of   the
Parliament. Otherwise, anomalous results may occur and
provisions may become discriminatory in itself;
(xii) The law does not expect the performance of the impossible;
(xiii) An act of the court shall prejudice no man;
(xiv) When there is a disability to perform a part of the law, such
a   charge   has   to   be   excused.   When   performance   of   the
formalities prescribed by a statute is rendered impossible
by circumstances over which the persons concerned have
no control, it has to be taken as a valid excuse;
(xv) The  Court   can  under   its  inherent   jurisdiction  ex   debito
justitiae has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered by the
19
defendants by the act of the Court;
(xvi) No person can suffer from the act of Court and an unfair
advantage of the interim order must be neutralised;
(xvii) No party can be permitted to take shelter under the cover of
Court’s order to put the other party in a disadvantageous
position; 
(xviii) If one has enjoyed under the Court's cover, that period
cannot be included towards inaction of the authorities to
take   requisite   steps   under   Section   24   as   the   State
authorities   would   have   acted   and   passed   an   award
determining compensation but for the Court's order.
Therefore   also,   the   original   writ   petitioners   –   land
owners   shall   not   be   entitled   to   enhanced   amount   of
compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 on the
ground that as the award has not been declared they shall
be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013. 
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
our specific finding that with respect to the lands acquired
under the  provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a)
of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and even otherwise
as observed hereinabove on merits also as the award could
not be declared due to the pendency of the writ petitions
before the High Court and the order of status quo, the High
Court   has   committed   a   serious   error   in   directing   the
appellants to pay the amount of compensation under the
20
Act, 2013. To that extent the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both
on facts as well as on law. 
6.1 However,   at   the   same   time,   as   it   is   reported   that   the
acquisition proceedings were challenged on other grounds
also and the prayer to pay the compensation under the Act,
2013 was an alternative prayer, which has been granted by
the High Court and therefore, the High Court did not go into
the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the original
land   owners   with   respect   to   the   quashing   of   the   land
acquisition proceedings on other grounds, the matters are to
be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petitions
afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits on the
other   grounds   if   any,   challenging   the   land   acquisition
proceedings under the State Act of 1990.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these   appeals   succeed.   The   impugned   common   judgment
and   order   dated   06.10.2021   passed   by   the   High   Court
allowing the writ petitions and directing the appellants to
pay to the original writ petitioners / original land owners the
compensation as per the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and
21
set   aside.   As   the   High   Court   has   not   decided   the   writ
petitions   on   merits   on   other   grounds   with   respect   to
quashing of the land acquisition proceedings, all the writ
petitions are remitted back to the High Court to decide and
dispose of the said writ petitions afresh in accordance with
law and on its own merits so far as other grounds with
respect to the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings,
which shall be dealt with by the High Court in accordance
with law and on its own merits. However, the issue with
respect to the applicability of the Act, 2013 is concluded and
shall not be reopened by the High Court and it is observed
and clarified that the High Court shall consider on merits
other submissions, if any raised in the writ petitions, with
respect to quashing of the land acquisition proceedings only.
Present   appeals   are   allowed   accordingly   to   the
aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs. 
………………………………….J.
       [M.R. SHAH]
     
  ………………………………….J.
       [KRISHNA MURARI]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 12, 2022

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर