National Green Tribunal
Shriram Govind Madgaonkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority ... on 9 January, 2024
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
Appeal No.38/2019(WZ)
I.A. No.73/2019(WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shriram Govind Madgaonkar
R/o H.No. 18, Kindlebag Tarir,
Canacona, Goa.
2. Laxmi Govind Madgaonkar
R/o H.No. 18, Kindlebag Tarir,
Canacona, Goa.
3. Prashant C. Kankonkar,
R/o: H No. 275/2, Columb,
Canacona, Goa.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority,
through its Member Secretary,
office at 1st Floor,
Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Bhavan,
Pundalik Nagar, Alto - Porvorim,
Bardez - Goa.
.....Respondent
Counsel for Appellant(s):
Mr. Dinesh Naik, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent:
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate for R-GCZMA
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 03.01.2024
Pronounced on : 09.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Respondent-GCZMA directing the appellant No.1/Shriram Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 1 of 15 Govind Madgaonkar and applicant No.2/Laxmi Govind Madgaonkar to demolish the RCC structure of Ground plus 1st floor in Survey No.16/10 of Nagorcem, Palolem lying within 50 mtrs. from the HTL, as depicted on the plan, prepared by the Talathi of Nagorcem Palolem Saza Village, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. In order to assess the correctness of the above-mentioned impugned order, we would like to take facts from the impugned order itself, where-in it is mentioned that the GCZMA had issued various directions to the Deputy Collector to take immediate action in cases of illegal construction in CRZ areas in violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991. Pursuant to which vide letter dated 02.02.2018, Mamlatdar of Canacona Taluka had submitted checklist stating that applicant No.1 had constructed RCC structure of Ground plus 1st floor, which act amounts to violation of CRZ Notification, 2011. The Respondent-GCZMA has also received report dated 30.04.2018 from the Deputy Collector & Sub Divisional Officer, Canacona, Goa inter alia stating that applicant No.1/Shri Shriram Govind Madgaonka had constructed RCC structure of Ground plus 1st floor covering an area of approximately 6x5=30 sq. mtrs. in Survey No.16/10 of Village Nagorcem, Palolem, Canacona, Goa.
3. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that after receipt of all these reports, the matter was placed in the Meeting of GCZMA held on 04.01.2019 and it was decided to take into consideration the inspection report and recommendation from the District Level Committee and decided to issue Show Cause Notice to the applicant No.1/Shriram Govind Madgaonkar, which was issued on 11.02.2019 and it was replied by the applicant No.1 on 26.02.2019. Based on the documents on record, the respondent authority framed following points for determination:- Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 2 of 15
(i). Whether structures existing in Survey No.16/10 of Nag Palolem are legal?
(ii). Whether there were the approved plan for such structures?
(iii). Whether subsequent approvals, if any, were obtained from any departments for the extensions/alteration of the structures?
(iv). Whether there was any Conversion Sanad?
(v). Whether there was any Sale Deed of the Property/
Mundkar Order/ Tenancy Order?
4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up in the next meeting by the respondent authority on 15.03.2019, where-in Advocate Mr. Prashant Paiginkar representing the appellant filed reply along-with documents in support of its defense, such as Form of Assessment issued by the Canancona Municipal Council dated 23.09.1988 in the name of Govind Yeshwant Pagi stating that there existed a residential house bearing House No.17 in Kindlehag, Canacona, Goa. The appellant has also produced Form of Report of Assessment from Canacona Municipal Council standing in the name of Govind Yeshwant Pagi. As per the Municipal Council of Canancona, the property in question was a residential house having a palm leaves roof lateritic stone pillars and ordinary floor. The appellant produced house tax receipts of the years 2006-07 & 2009-10. The appellant disputed the report submitted by the Deputy Collector, Canancona South Goa. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up in the meeting of respondent authority on 15.03.2019, where-in the appellant placed reliance upon the house tax assessment of the structures of the year 1988, stating that the residential house bearing H. No.17 had mud floor and palm leaves roof without walls.
5. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the appellant also produced an affidavit of his mother, where-in she had requested the Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 3 of 15 Canacona Municipal Council to transfer the house bearing H. No.18 into her name from the name of her deceased husband. The respondent authority also noted that the appellant had produced another Form of Report of Assessment from Canacona Municipal Council standing in the name of Govind Yeshwant Pagi. As per the Municipal Council of Canancona, the said property was a residential house having a palm leaves roof lateritic stone pillars and ordinary floor. The report of assessment did not mention any house number or the date of recording the assessment in the record maintained by the municipality.
6. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that in view of the above both the assessment reports produced by the appellant were not found to be sufficient by the authority to prove that the said construction carried out by the appellant, was of prior to coming into force the CRZ Notification, 1991. The water bill produced by the appellant dated 24.08.2015 stated that the meter was installed on 04.04.2008 standing in the name of mother of the appellant (Laxmi Madgaonkar) for House No.18. The electricity bills produced by the appellant stood in the name of deceased father namely Govind Madgaonkar and connection was installed on 09.10.1995.
7. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the appellant produced house tax receipts of the years 2006-07 & 2009-10. On the basis of documents of the house tax, water bill and electricity bill relied upon by the appellant it could not be proved by the appellant that the structure was constructed prior to the year 1991. The Talathi of Nagorcem, Palolem had submitted a report dated 25.01.2018 stating that the appellant had carried out construction of RCC structure of G + 1 floor of an area of 30 sq. mtrs. without leaving any set back on the road and was found to be within 50 mtrs. of Talpona river, which was constructed in the year 2017, as per the sketch provided by the Talathi of Nagorcem, Palolem. The Form I and XIV of Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 4 of 15 the property bearing Survey No.16/10 of Nag-Palolem produced by the appellant did not mention any of the structure existing therein. In view of above, the respondent authority held that the appellant failed to justify the existing plinth dimensions with the help of documentary evidence extended from its side and failed to produce approved plan or any permission/ NOC from the GCZMA or its erstwhile body GSCCE. The authority also noted that the appellant had not submitted any permission/ NOC from any other authority to show that the construction was done prior to the year 1991. Hence, it was held that the documents produced by the appellant did not substantiate the legality of the structure and hence, the impugned order was passed ordering its demolition.
8. In the memo of appeal, it is submitted that the appellants are belonging to fisherman community of Other Backward Class and late father of appellant No.1, who is husband of appellant no.2 had a house in the property bearing Survey No.16/10 of Village: Nagarcem, Canacona, Goa, which along-with the said adjacent properties were originally owned by the family of late Vasudev Ram Pai, Madhav Ram Pai, Yeshwant Ram Pai, Gin Ram Pai and others families, who allowed the appellants' ancestors' father to reside in the house of the said property. The appellant's father late Govind Madgaonkar had a house in this property bearing no. old House No.956/1, which was later given House No.17 and after assessment was given new no.18, which was recorded in the Office of Canacona Municipal Council prior to the year 1991. Late father of appellant No.1 expired but the appellant Nos.1 & 2 continued to reside in the said house along-with their other family members.
9. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that the appellants have old ration card, voter's card as well as present Aadhaar Card on their present house number, which shows that they are residing here for several Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 5 of 15 years and that they have not constructed any new house in the year 2018, as alleged by the Talathi of Nagoreem, who made false report. The said house of the appellant is an existing structure of prior to the year 1991, having present house no.18 (old 17) with Canacona Municipal Council registered for tax prior to the year 1988 in the name of Govind Madgaonkar, who had applied for assessment of the house in the year 1988. At that particular time, the said house was made with mud walls flooring, which was subsequently repaired. In the year 1996, Canacona Municipal Council had made fresh assessment for the purpose of house tax. After the demise of Govind Madgaonkar, the appellant No.2 had applied for transfer of the said house tax in the year 2009. The appellants belonged to fisherman community and hence they had no financial capacity to take electricity connection. There was a water well in the vicinity and hence, there was no question of obtaining water supply connection, till recently. The water supply pipeline had been laid after the year 2000 in this locality and thereafter, the appellants had taken the water supply connection in the year 2015. Based on above documents, it is stated that the appellants' house existed prior to 1988, which is prior to 19.02.1991, on which date, the CRZ Regulation came into force.
10. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that by the Notification dated 18.01.2019, the Central Government amended the original Notification relating to Coastal Regulation Zone and under the said Notification, as per clause 2.2, the area within Municipal limits are considered as developed land having approach roads, other infrastructure facilities, water supply facilities, sewerage etc. and restrictions about the construction within 50 mtrs. from the river are not applicable. The clause 2.2 of the CRZ Notification, 2019 provides that "CRZ-II shall constitute the developed land areas up to or close to the shoreline, within the existing Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 6 of 15 municipal limits or in other existing legally designated urban areas, which are substantially built-up with a ratio of built-up plots to that of total plots being more than 50 percent and have been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply, sewerage mains, etc."
11. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that the appellant No.1 received notice cum stop work order dated 21.02.2018 from the Deputy Collector, Canacona alleging that the Mamlatdar of Canacona had submitted checklist showing that the appellants had constructed structure of 30 sq. mtrs. in Survey No.16/10 of Village Nagorcem Palolem within 50 mtrs. from the CRZ area, hence the appellant No.1 was directed to remain present before the Deputy Collector on 12.03.2018. Appellant had replied to the said notice. Thereafter on 19.03.2018, the Deputy Collector forwarded the file to the respondent authority. Later, appellant No.1 received a Show Cause Notice dated 11.02.2019 from the respondent authority alleging that the authority had received a report of Talathi of Nagarcem Village dated 25.01.2018 alleging that appellants had made illegal construction. It was replied by the appellants on 26.02.2019 pointing out that the Talathi's report did not speak about the age of construction and the plinth of the original house, which was not ascertained during inspection nor were any attempts made to check from Municipal records about the original plinth of the house nor since when the appellants' house was in existence. The appellant No.2 stated that appellants have not made any construction and that the show cause notice was misconceived and not maintainable. It was submitted by the appellants that the house is an existing structure and relied upon the documents issued by the Canacona Municipal Council. Thereafter, respondent authority issued notice dated 04.03.2019 and fixed hearing in this matter on 15.03.2019.
Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 7 of 15
12. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that on 14.05.2019, the appellants received an order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the respondent authority stating that in the meeting held on 15.03.2019, it is resolved that the appellants' house was located within 50 mtrs. of river Talpan within CRZ area as per the Plan prepared by Talathi and it is illegal and passed an order of demolition of the house of the appellants in survey no.16/10 of village Nagarcem, Goa, within 30 days of receipt of the order. Thereafter, appellants verified the distance of house from the HTL as well as took legal advice and found that by Notification dated 18.01.2019, the Central Government had amended the original Notification relating to Coastal Regulation Zone and under Clause 2.2 of which the area within municipal limits was considered as developed land and hence the restrictions about construction within 50 mtrs. from the river was not applicable. The appellants' house is in Municipal/Urban Developed area and the house is towards landward side after road. There are at least six houses within an area of 300 mtrs. from the appellants' house, which are hardly about 10 mtrs. to 30 mtrs. from the river Talpan and the appellants' house is after the road, which is almost at a distance of 50 mtrs. from the river Talpan. The appellants have produced photographs of their house, which would clearly show that there is a road between the river and the appellants' house and that there are other houses very close to the river and that the said area is developed area with electricity, water supply, road etc. Therefore, the case of the appellants falls under clause 2.2 of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 18.01.2019. This legal position has not been considered by the respondent authority and the impugned order has been passed illegally.
13. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that the respondent authority has displayed draft Goa Coastal Management Plan/MAP on its website for inviting objections, which is being prepared as per CRZ Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 8 of 15 Notification 2011, in which the area within the river Talpan including Survey No.16/10 of Village Nagarcem, Goa where-in appellants' house is existing, is shown as CRZ-II area. In this map, Fishing Ward Boundary is also marked and the area, wherein appellants' house is existing, falls within this fishing ward. Therefore, under this Notification dated 06.01.2011, the area falls under CRZ- II as it is under Urban/ Municipal Council. Under clause 7 (ii) and 8 (ii) of the Notification dated 06.01.2011, the Urban Municipal area falls under CRZ- II and in case any area beyond the existing road falls within 100 mtrs. of the river, the construction of houses is permissible, if it is beyond existing road.
14. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that the Canacona Municipal Council has recommended to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority that the area in question is within CRZ-II and the appellants' house is beyond 50 mtrs. of the river line as per the Notification dated 18.01.2019. Therefore, the contention of respondent authority that the area falls within CRZ III, is incorrect. Further, it is mentioned that the respondent authority has relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 07.06.2019, issued by the Director, Coastal Regulation Zone, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, in which it is stated that the provisions of new CRZ Notification, 2019 shall not be applicable for CRZ clearance of development projects in the CRZ area and the provisions of CRZ Notification of 2011 shall continue to be followed till the CRZ plan is prepared. The appellants submit that this Office Memorandum is not a Notification and it is not notified/published in the Official Gazette of the Government of India or State of Goa. Hence, it cannot override the Notification dated 18.01.2019.
15. It is further mentioned in the memo of this appeal that the show cause notice dated 11.02.2019 and the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the respondent authority are of a date subsequent to the publication of Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 9 of 15 Notification dated 18.01.2019, under which the area within 50 mtrs. of the river line is No Development Zone and under Notification of 2011 also, this area is shown as CRZ-II area. Therefore, the appellants' house, which is beyond 50 mtrs. of the river and beyond the existing road, would not fall within CRZ area as per the Notification dated 18.01.2019 and the same is also beyond the existing road in CRZ-II area under Notification of 2011. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
16. This appeal was first considered by the Tribunal on 23.07.2019 and notice was directed to be issued to the sole respondent i.e. GCZMA.
17. From the side of Respondent-GCZMA, reply affidavit dated 17.08.2019 has been filed, where-in it is submitted that the appellants have made an illegal construction of RCC structure of G+1 of an area of 30 sq. mtrs. without leaving any set back on the road, which is within 50 mtrs. of Talpona river (HTL), i.e. No Development Zone, which is classified as CRZ- III area. The said illegal structure was constructed in the year 2017 as per the sketch provided by Talathi of Nagorcem -Palolem and the appellants after being given due opportunities of hearings, failed to produce any single document showing the approval/ permission regarding the said illegal construction being in existence since prior to 1991.
18. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent-GCZMA that as per the CRZ Notification- 2011, the entire belt of 100 mtrs. from the High Tide Line (HTL) of river and 200 mtrs. from the HTL from the sea are designated as the No Development Zone (NDZ) and hence no construction/development was permissible in the said belt. All the proposed "reconstruction/construction/development/repair" between 200 mtrs. to 500 mtrs. of the HTL from sea and 100 mtrs. from the river required prior approval from the respondent authority under the CRZ Notification 2011. Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 10 of 15 Since the illegal structure is in NDZ of the said river i.e. within 50 mtrs., hence no new construction is permissible within the 50 mtrs. demarcation line. The appellants have not taken any such permission from the Competent Authority before raising the illegal structure, hence it is liable to be demolished.
19. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent-GCZMA that as per CRZ Notification 2011, the NDZ of the area near a river is 100 mtrs. from the river and the set back from the river is 100 mts. or the width of the river whichever is less. Since the structure of the appellants falls within 50 mtrs. (65 sq. mtrs. as alleged by the appellants) of the river, it attracts the provision of CRZ Notification- 2011 and due prior permission was required to be taken for raising any construction, from the respondent authority, which admittedly was not done in the present case. The relevant portion of CRZ Notification- 2011 is provided as under :-
"III. CRZ-III.
A. Area upto 200mts from HTL on the landward side in case of seafront and 100mts along tidal influenced water bodies or width of the creek whichever is less is to be earmarked as "No Development Zone (NDZ)",- ..... (ii) No construction shall be permitted within NDZ except for repairs or reconstruction of existing authorized structure not exceeding existing Floor Space Index, existing plinth area and existing density and for permissible activities under the notification (especially) facilities essential for activities;.........."
20. In the light of above provision, it is further mentioned that the illegal structure of the appellants did not exist prior to the year 1991, hence no repair could have been carried out therein. In fact, in the case in hand, the illegal construction has taken place in the year 2017 and that too without any approved plan or any permission/NOC from GCZMA or its erstwhile body GSCCE.
21. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent-GCZMA that the appellants have failed to justify to the answering respondent Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 11 of 15 regarding the existing plinth dimensions of the illegal structure with the help of credible documents. The documents produced by the appellants before the answering respondent did not substantiate legality of the said structure. Form I and XIV of the property in question produced by the appellants before the answering respondent did not mention of any structure existing therein. The appellants produced before the answering respondent Form of Report of Assessment from Canacona Municipal Council, Goa, which was in the name of Govind Yeshwant Pagi. But the appellants failed to state how Mr. Govind Yeshwant Pagi was related to the appellants. As per the Municipal Council of Canacona, the property is a residential house having a palm leaves roof, lateritic stone pillars and ordinary floor. Thus, the illegal construction done by the appellants of RCC structure of G+1 of an area of 30 sq. mtrs., without leaving any set back on road, which is within 50 mtrs. of Talpona river (HTL), i.e. No Development Zone in the year 2017, is admittedly without any approved plan or any permission/NOC from GCZMA. Besides that, it has also been stated that the appellants did not produce any documents to prove that they belonged to the Fisherfolk community. Irrespective of the fact whether appellants belong to the Fisherfolk community or not, any re-construction/repair of the structure at NDZ requires prior approval/ permission from the answering respondent, which was not taken in the present case. So far as the contention of the appellants that as per the Clause 2.2 of CRZ- II area of the Notification dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Central Government, the areas within Municipal limit are considered as developed land and restrictions about constructions within 50 mtrs. from the river are not applicable, it is submitted that the CRZ Notification of 2019 is not in force and therefore is not applicable here. The said Notification would not come in force until the Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) of the coastal districts of the State are prepared and approved.
Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 12 of 15
22. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
23. In short, question involved in the present appeal is that whether the construction of G+1 floor, which was found by the Talathi to be lying within 50 mtrs. of the HTL of river Talpona, is lying in NDZ and hence, the same is illegal or not, for want of permission/NOC having been taken by the appellants for raising pakka construction.
24. The learned counsel for appellants has relied upon the Order/Judgment dated 11.04.2013 of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Goa & 3 Others (Original Application No.49 of 2012); Order/Judgment dated 15.02.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in the matter of Milton Marquis vs. State of Goa & 5 Others (Writ Petition No.235 of 2016); and Order/Judgment dated 19.04.2023 of this Tribunal in the matter of Francis Francisco Rodrigues vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Ors. (Appeal No.35/2022) and it is orally argued that these three Orders/Judgments indicate that an Expert Committee was required to be constituted by the respondent authority before arriving on a conclusion that the disputed construction lay within 50 mtrs. of the HTL of river Talpona. There was no such Expert Committee constituted, hence impugned order should be treated to be illegal.
25. We are not inclined to accept this argument nor do we find that these Orders/Judgments would help the case of the appellants because there is a clear admission on the part of appellants that the existing structure lay within 65 mtrs. of the HTL of river Talpona. Therefore, despite the fact that such kind of construction/repair work could have been done only with the prior permission having been obtained from the respondent authority i.e. GCZMA, which has not been obtained in the present case.
Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 13 of 15
26. The learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that prior to passing of the impugned order, no site inspection has been conducted by any of the Expert Committee, constituted by the Respondent-GCZMA and that reliance was placed by them on a report of Talathi, which is a Revenue Authority, not competent to submit the said kind of report regarding the house of the appellants falling in NDZ area and much stress was laid by him on that aspect, this Tribunal ought to remand the matter to the respondent authority to decide afresh after constituting an Expert Committee to ascertain whether the construction made by the appellants fell within 50 mtrs. of the HTL of river Talpona or not, because in the estimation of the appellants, the said construction did not lie within 50 mtrs. and was beyond the CRZ area.
27. From the contents of the appeal, it also appears that appellants are trying to rely on the CRZ Notification- 2019, which obviously is not in force as of now because of the non-preparation of CZMPs. Therefore, we have to stick to the provisions of CRZ Notification- 2011. As per the CRZ Notification-2011, following is treated to be in CRZ area:-
"(ii) CRZ shall apply to the land area between HTL to 100 mts. or width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side along the tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance upto which development along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance upto which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (ppt) measured during the driest period of the year and distance upto which tidal effects are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated accordingly in the Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter referred to as the CZMPs).
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph the expression tidal influenced water bodies means the water bodies influenced by tidal effects from sea, in the bays, estuaries, rivers, creeks, backwaters, lagoons, ponds connected to the sea or creeks and the like."
28. We may also refer here to the special provision for CRZ of Goa of the CRZ Notification-2011, which is as under-
"3. CRZ of Goa:-Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 14 of 15
(ii). reconstruction, repair works of the structures of local communities including fishermen community shall be permissible in CRZ;"
29. In view of above provision, it is apparent that the position of law is very clear in this case that the construction/re-construction/repair of the existing structure is permissible in CRZ area. But for that, prior permission was required to be obtained by the person intending to make such kind of repair/re-construction work.
30. In the case in hand, from the impugned order, which we have cited above, it is apparent that no permission has been obtained by the appellants. The documents, which were submitted from their side, did not indicate that the construction stood there prior to the year 1991 in the present form. Therefore, the view taken by the respondent authority i.e. GCZMA in finding the said structure to be illegal, does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, we stand by that order and approve of the same and find that there is no force in the present appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
31. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM January 09, 2024 Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) I.A. No.73/2019(WZ) P.kr Appeal No.38/2019(WZ) [I.A. No.73/2019] Page 15 of 15