Allowed

S T v. Sampath Kumar at T Sampath Kumar, v The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2023WP/16614/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an award where the Land Acquisition Officer decided a title dispute between two claimants, the Court held that the Officer acted beyond jurisdiction. The Court set aside the award and directed the officer to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 77 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and deposit the compensation determined in the award.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned award dated 15-03-2018 was set aside. The third respondent was directed to refer the matter to the authority under Section 77 of the Act, 2013, within two m

S T v Sampath Kumar at T Sampath Kumar, Vs The State… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND. TWENTY THREE

¶4

■

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16614 OF 2018

¶8

Between

¶9

ST V Sampath Kumar T Sampath Kumar, S/o, Late Desika Charyulu, Aged about 77 Years, Occ Retired Teacher, R/o. R/o.Flat.No.203, Sarada Gopalan Apartments, St.No.8, Himayatnagar-500029.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

2. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.

¶14

3. The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunur, West Godavari District.

¶15

4. S.T.V.Ramanujacharyulu, S/o. Seshavatharam, aged about 70 Years, Occc Retired Pensioner, R/o.H.No.5-1-17, N.K.Nagar, Chuncupalli, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue Writ, order, direction of the Writ More particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the actions of the Respondents, declaring the action of the third Respondent in not referring the matter to Authority as established under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3-36 Gts, in Sy.No.Lanka Khaisa.1, situated at Peddaravigudem Village of Kukunuru Mandal of West Godavari district and trying to pay the compensation amounts of land in question in favour of Respondent.No.4 by declaring the order dated 15-03-2018 in R.O.C. No.85/2016 passed by the 3"* respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 300 A of Constitution of India and contrary to the Rule 3 of A.P.Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, and consequentially direct the Third Respondent to refer the matter to the Authority as constituted under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,

¶18

depositing entire Compensation amounts in respect of the Ac.3-36 Gts, in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa.1, situated at Peddaravigudem Village of Kukunuru Mandal of West Godavari District.

¶19

Prayer is amended as per C.O. dated 22-04-2021 in IA.No.1 of 2019.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Third Respondent not to disburse the Compensation amounts to the Fourth Respondent, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3-36 Gts, in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa.1, situated. at Peddaravigudem Village of Kukunuru Mandal of West Godavari district,, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent or the 4*“ Respondent to redeposit the compensation amount of RS.41,65,905/- before the authority under Section 77 of Act, 2013 in the interest of justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAJASEKHAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI, STANDING COUNSEL

¶27

The Court made the following: order

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 16614 OF 2018

¶31

Between:

¶32

S.T.V.Sampath Kumar @ T.Sampath Kumar, S/o Late Desika Charyulu, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o Flat No.203, Sarada Gopalan Apartments, St.No.8, Himayatnagar - 500029.

¶33

... Petitioner

¶34

"Versus

¶35

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others.

¶36

... Respondents.

¶37

Counsels for the petitioner : Sri P.Rajasekhar Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : GP for Land Acquisition

¶38

Counsel for respondent No.4

¶39

: Sri B.Srinivasa Rao' Standing Counsel.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶42

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶43

"... tQ issue a writ Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of S’-*! respondent in not referring the matter to ‘Authority’ as established under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

¶44

Page 2 of 18

¶45

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶46

Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3-36 Gts, in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa. 1 situated at Peddaravigudem Village of Kukunuru Mandal of West Godavari District and trying to pay the compensation amounts of land in question in favour of respondent No.4 herein, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the Rule 3 of A.P.Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...”

¶47

Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner is the owner and pattadar of land of an extent of Ac.3.36 Guts in Sy.No.Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudem Village, Kukunuru Mandal, West Godavari District. Originally, the agricultural land belonged to the petitioner’s father by naine S.T.V.Desikachaiyulu. In the family partition, Sy.No.Khalsa No.l of an extent of Ac.3.36 Guts fell to petitioner’s father share. Name of the petitioner’s father was recorded in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued Rythu Pass 6ook on 23.05.1972 and on 14.04.1978. After the death of petitioner’s father, petitioner succeeded to the properties and name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records.

¶48

Notice in Form-6 (A) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, herein after referred to as ‘Act 30 of 2013’ was

¶49

Page 3 of 18

¶50

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶51

issued on 03.12.2016. An extent of Ac.3.36 guntas in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa No.l is part of. the notification. In the enjoyment column of the said notification. name of Sri Ramanuja Charyulu, S/o Sri Narasimha Charyulu has been shown. Petitioner filed objections on 02.02.2017 and on 11,05.2017 respectively, regarding. wrong mentioning of the petitioner’s name and, also not including his name in the notification. Since there was no action, petitioner filed .W.P.No. 19608 of 2017 . praying to refer the matter to the authority, as per the Act 30 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.06.2017. Learned. Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner within, one (01) week and further directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders before passing final aw^d. The Land Acquisition Officer and the Sub-Collector, Kukunuru., West Godavari District, passed award vide Roc.No.85/2016 dated 15.03.2018, without considering- the objections of the petitioner.

¶52

Earlier, respondent .No.3 - Land Acquisition Officer kept the compensation amount in respect.of Ac.3.36 Guts covered by

¶53

¶54

Page 4 of 18

¶55

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶56

Malai Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudem village in hold, mentioning it as dispute. Respondent No.3 - Land Acquisition Officer without conducting enquiry, passed the award.

¶57

Respondent No.3 vide Roc.No.85/2016 dated 15.03.2018, concluded that the award was passed in the name of Sri S.T-.V.Ramanuja Charyulu, son of Sri Seshavatharam for an extent of Ac.3.36 Guntas covered by Malai Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudem Village and rejected the claims of the other claimants. With these averments, writ petition was filed.

¶58

Initially, proceedings of respondent No.3 dated 15.03.2018 was not challenged. However, by filing I.A.No.Ol of 2019, petitioner sought for amendment of prayer to set aside the proceedings dated 15.03.2018 as arbitraiy and illegal. The said amendment was ordered on 22.04.2021.

¶59

Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit on 05.10.2021. It was contended, inter-alia, that Peddaravigudem Village of Kukunoor Mandal is one of the villages liable for Submersion due to Polavaram Irrigation Project along with some other villages of the Mandal. An extent of Ac.20.22 Guts in

¶60

/ / ,/

¶61

Page 5 of 18

¶62

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶63

Peddaravigudem Village has been notified for acquisition under submergence in Polavaram Irrigation Project. Preliminary notificatipn under Section 11(1) and Declaration under Section 19 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013 were approved by the District Collector and the same was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary issues. Newspapers, in the locality etc., as required. After issuance of notice under Section'21 of the Act, award enquiry was conducted and draft award was submitted which was approved by the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru.

¶64

Petitioner filed W.P.No. 19608 of 2017 not to pay compensation in favour of respondent No.4 therein. Writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry and to consider the representations/objections. Respondent No. 3 conducted enquiry and declared that respondent No.4 therein is entitled for compensation, since the petitioner failed to produce any documents.

¶65

After disposal of W.P.No. 19608 of 2017, notices were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer to both the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted detailed enquiry. During ■ the enquiry petitioner could not produce any valid documentary

¶66

Page 6 of 18

¶67

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶68

evidence to prove his ownership, except filing Xerox copies. Respondent No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of land since long time. In the Sethwar and revenue records, name of Sri Seshavatharam (father of respondent No.4) was recorded as pattadar and enjoyer. As such, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award in favour of respondent No.4 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Due procedure was followed while passing the award.

¶69

The compensation amount in respect of Lanka Khalsa No.l would be paid after submission of valid documents by the awardee. As per the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, amount of compensation would be paid to the individual bank accounts of the land losers through CFMS and the system of cheque payment is dispensed with. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶70

Respondent No.4 filed separate counter affidavit, wherein, it was contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.36 Guts in Lanka Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudpm Village. He succeeded to the property from his father Seshavataram. The said property was shown by his father in

¶71

■B.’rs

¶72

Page 7 of 18

¶73

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶74

LCC No.747/Bgp/76 dated 01.12.1976. After the death of his father, his name has been recorded in the revenue records. In the notification, his father’s name was shown as Sri Narasimha Charyulu. Immediately, on 11.02.2017, he gave representation to respondent No.3. Since no action was taken, he filed W.P.No.21594 of 2017 and the same was disposed of on 04.07.2017, directing the respondent No.3 to. consider the representation. Respondent No.4 made another representation on 16.10.2017 with all documents. Respondent No.3 'after conducing enquiry, passed award vide Roc.No.85/2016 dated 15.03.2018. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶75

Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an extent of Ac.3.36 Guts in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudem Village belonged to the petitioner. Petitioner made objections on 02.02.2017 and 11.05.2017, when the name of Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Charyulu, son of Sri Narasimha Charyulu

¶77

Page 8 of 18

¶78

SRSJ W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶79

is shown as Ac.3.36 Guts. Since the representation was not considered,, he filed W.P.No. 19608 of 2017 and the same was disposed of on 19.06.2017, directing the authority to consider the objections. He also would submit that there is discrepancy regarding passing of award by respondent No.3. He also would submit that respondent No.3, after the award was passed, conducted enquiry and passed the order impugned in the writ petition dated 15.03.2018, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and hence, the order is liable to be set aside. He also would submit that when there is rival claim, respondent No.3 ought to have refer the matter under Section 77 of Act 30 of 2013.

¶80

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 per contra, would contend that respondent No.4 is the owner of the property. The name of his father has been wrongly shown in the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act 30 of 2013, and hence representation was made by respondent No.4 on 11.02.2017 and later filed W.P.No.21594 of 2017. Respondent No.3 after conducting enquiry passed award on 15.03.2018. Respondent No.3 concluded that respondent No.4 is entitled for compensation. He would further submit that

¶81

¶82

Page 9 of 18

¶83

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶84

respondent No.3 Land Acquisition Officer followed the. procedure and passed the award. He would further contend that Land Acquisition Officer conducted enquiry under Section 23 of the Act and passed the award. The order, impugned in the writ petition was passed, in view of the order passed in W.P.No. 19608 of 2017 on 09.06.2017. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶85

As seen from the record, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of notification under Section 11(1) and 19(1) of the Act 30 2013.. In the notification under Section 11(1) and 19(1) of the Act, name of the person is shown as Sri S.T.V.Ramanujacharyulu S/o Sri Narasimha Charyulu against Ac.3.36 Guts in Sy.No.Lanka Khalsa No.l of Peddaravigudem Village. Petitioner and respondent No.4 are claiming ownership over the property by relying upon the revenue records.

¶86

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.,19608 of 2017. 4* respondent filed W.P.No.21594 of 2017. Two writ petitions were disposed of by separate orders on 19.06.2017 and 04.07.2017 respectively. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that draft award was approved

¶87

¶88

Page 10 of 18

¶89

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶90

by the collector and the respondent authorities did not receive any representations from the petitioner. Learned Single Judge disposed of writ petition directing the authorities to consider the objections within one (01) week and pass appropriate orders before passing the award.

¶91

It is pertinent to mention here that as seen from the counter affidavit dated 05.10.2021, the District Collector and the District Magistrate approved the award vide Roc. No. E- 411656/2015, dated 28.05.2017. Draft award was passed vide Roc.No.A-85/2016 dated 19.05.2017. Form No.IX annexed to the proceedings referred to supra, would indicate that the award No.24/2017-18 dated 13.06.2017. In Sy.No.l3 name of the person is shown as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Charyulu, son of Sri Narasimha Charyulu. In preliminary notification under Sectioh 11(1) of the Act, against Lanka Khalsa No.l, namp of the petitioner is shown as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Chaiylu, son of Sri Narasimha Charyulu and in the declaration also same name was shown.

¶92

Later two separate counters were filed by the same officer .on 06.04.2022 and 20.04.2022 respectively. In the counter T -

¶93

Page 11 of 18

¶94

SRS, J W.P.N0.I6QI4 of 2018

¶95

affidavit dated 06.04.2022, it was mentioned as award No.E426735/2016, dated 20.07.2018. Further Form-IX annexed to the counter would be shown as award No.E-426735/2016/R86R, dated 29.03.2017. Name of the person is shown as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Charyulu, son of Sri Narasimha Charyulu: In Form No.A filed along with the counter which shows that date of award is 13.06.2017, name of the beneficiary as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Chary, son of Sri Seshavataram.

¶96

Form No.IX filed along with the counter affidavit dated 20.04.2022, would disclose that in the award No.E426.735/2016/R85R dated 29.03.2017, name of the person is shown as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Chaiyulu, son of Sri Narasimha Charyulu. Form-A annexed to the counter would disclose the name of beneficiary as Sri S.T.V.Ramanuja Chary, son of Sri Seshavataram. The amount of Rs.41,65,905/- was deposited on 04.08.2018 in the hame of Sri Venkata Ramanuja Chary to the credit of his bank account.

¶97

Thus, the counter affidavit filed on 05.10.2021, it was mentioned that award was passed on 13.06.2017 and it was approved by the District Collector on 28.05.2017. In the counter

¶98

¶99

Page 12 of 18

¶100

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶101

affidavit filed on 06.04.2022, as per Fprm-IX award was passed on 29.03.2017 Me Roc.No.426325/2016/R&R. Deponent of the counter made different statements, on oath, qua passing of the award.

¶102

As stated supra, petitioner as weU as respondent No. 4. are claiming Title over the property. As seen from the sir names of petitioner as well as respondent No.4, they are closely related.

¶103

When there is a serious and genuine dispute regarding title over the property, respondent No.3 - Land Acquisition Officer ought to have referred the matter to the authority as constituted under Section 77 of the Act. 3rd respondent is not substitute to a Civil Court. However, for the reasons best known to respondent No.3, notwithstanding the objections made by the petitioner on 02.12.2017 and 11.05.2017 respectively, failed to refer the rnatter to the authority.

¶104

it is not out of place to mention here that passing of award on 13.06.2017 vide No.24/2017-18, was not brought to the Court’s notice, when learned single judge disposed of W.P.No.19608 of 2017 on 19.06.2017. After the award was

¶105

Page 13 of 18

¶106

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶107

passed, respondent No.3 in view qf the order passed in W.P.No. 19608 of 2017, passed order impugned in the writ petition and concluded that petitioner is not entitled for compensation and respondent No.4 is entitled for compensation.

¶108

It is pertinent to mention here that once an Award was passed by the land acquisition officer, as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, the authority will become functus officio. Land acquisition officer, during award enquiry, based on the objections of rival parties normally refers the matter before the competent authority. Once an award is passed, he cannot under adjudication of civil disputes between the parties. While passing of award, land acquisition officer, normally shall consider the respective claims and observe the claims in the award and •' thereafter refer the matter to authority. However, case on hand. land acquisition officer acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction.

¶109

Respondent No.3 being the land acquisition officer should not have decided the title dispute usurping the jurisdiction of Civil Court. In the proceedings impugned, respondent No.3 noted that the petitioner filed ten documents. It was further

a=s»'

Page 14 of 18

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶114

mentioned that respondent No.4 filed three documents. The authority came to conclusion that the petitioner did not produce valid documentary proof, to prove ownership on the disputed land of an extent of Ac.3.36 Guts. Authority considered the entries in Sethwar and revenue records. It is settled principle of law that the entries in revenue record, cannot confer title on the parties. Land Acquisition Officer could not have decide genuine title dispute between the parties, The Land Acquisition Officer, in view of the rival claims. ought to refer the matter to the Authority and the authorify will adjudicate the title dispute between the parties.

¶115

The proceedings impugned also does not indicate the reasons, except saying that petitioner did not produce any valid document and respondent No.4 placed reliance upon the Sethwar and LCC proceedings.

¶116

Peculiarly, after the award was passed. 3"i respondent decided the title dispute between this petitioner and 4th respondent. In the considered Opinion of this court, after ^I^ssing of the award by Land Acquisition Officer, the authority becomes yimctus qfifao and the respondent No.3 Land

¶117

Page 15 of 18

¶118

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶119

Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction/authorify to determine the ownership of the respective parties.

¶120

Even in proceedings impugned dated 15.03.2018, i , it was mentioned that award is dated 13.06.2017 and the same was not brought to Court’s notice, when the writ petition was disposed of on 19.06.2017 in W.P.No. 19608. of 2017. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings noted are liable to be set aside.

¶121

During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Shyam Rao vs. Land Acquisition Officeri. The Division Bench of composite High Court, after considering the provisions under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the depositing of amount after reference is made, directed the respondent No.3 therein to deposit the amount in the Civil Court. Case on hand, as seen from the , material on record, amount was paid to the. respondent No.4 on 0,4.08.2018. In the counter affidavit dated 05.10.2021, it was not brought to the court notice about the payment of

‘air 1991 AP219

c—

Page 16 of 18

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶126

compensation to the respondent No.4. In fact, Para No.9 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as under;

¶127

“the compensation amount for lanka khalsa 1 is pending not because of dispute, but due to non submission of the valid documents by the awardee.”

¶128

However, as noted supra, amount was paid to the respondent No.4. Petitioner filed I.A.No.Ol of 2022 to direct the respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 to redeposit the compensation amount.

¶129

In view of discussion supra and the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio laid down by this division bench of composite high court, binding on this court, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶130

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the proceedings in Roc.No.85/2016 dated 15.03.2018. Respondent No.3 shall refer the matter to the Authority under Section 77 of the Act 30 of 2013, within a period of two (02) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall also deposit the amount determined in Award proceedings (paid to 4th respondent) at the time of

¶131

Page 17 of 18

¶132

SRS, J W.P.No.16614 of 2018

¶133

referring the matter to the authority as per the Section 77 of Act

¶134

30 of 2013. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶135

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶136

stand dismissed.

¶137

//TRUE COPY//

¶138

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ON OFFICER

¶139

¶140

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru . 3. The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunur West Godavari District . 4. One CC to Sri P Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:01/08Z2023

ORDER

WP.No.16614 of 2018

¶146

0 2 SiF 2123
Current Sect^n
^'* *4«^ - . *. •