Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmi Subramanyam vs State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.16512 OF 2011 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LAKSHMI SUBRAMANYAM
W/O LATE R.K.SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
2. SHRI S.RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O LATE R.K.SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. MRS.NIRMALA RAVINDRANATH,
D/O LATE R.K.SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. MRS.S.PARVATHY,
D/O LATE R.K.SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
APPELLANTS 1, 2 AND 4 ARE
REP. BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER Mr.B.RAVINDRANATH,
AND ALL R/AT No.91, 4TH MAIN,
CHOLANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560032. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.N.ARUN, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE,
REP. BY SECRETARY/
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
PODIUM BLOCK,
SIR M.VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
VIDHANA VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. SHRI AIYANNA
MAJOR.
4. SHRI BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE SIDDAPPA
AND RESIDING AT CHEEMASANDRA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
VIRGONAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560049.
5. SMT. C.RATHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O LATE S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH.
6. SHRI MANMATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH.
7. SHRI C.MUKUND KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH.
5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT 413,
ESHWARA NILAYA, CHEEMASANDRA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
3
VIRGONAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560049.
8. SMT.UMARANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA.
9. MASTER PAVAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA.
10. MASTER YEDESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA.
11. KUMARI HARSHITHA
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
D/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA.
10 & 11 ARE MINORS AND ARE
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT.UMARANI.
8 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT
CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
VIRGONAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560049, ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.C.AKKAMAHADEVI, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV. FOR R3 - R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.3834/2005(LR) DATED 20.01.2011.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This is a landlords' appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the order of the Land Tribunal granting Occupancy Rights in favour of contesting respondents herein.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Land Reforms Tribunal.
3. The subject matter of this proceedings is the lands bearing Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 24 guntas and Sy.No.103 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas both situate at Cheemasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The material on record discloses this land originally belonged to one Huchegowda. He sold the said land in favour of one Giddappa. Giddappa in turn sold it in favour of one Shantamma. From Shantamma one R.K.Subramanyam purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1968. After purchase of the land, mutation entries were effected 5 and the name of R.K.Subramanyam is entered in the RTC records.
4. One Siddappa filed an application on 11.12.1975 in Form No.7 under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands. In the said application, R.K.Subramanyam was arrayed as the land owner. The said application was allowed on 07.06.1979. It is not in dispute that in the said proceedings, no notice was issued nor served on R.K.Subramanyam. R.K.Subramanyam died in the year 1982. His wife and children on coming to know of the said order of the Land Reforms Tribunal on 07.06.1979 preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6941/1983. The said Siddappa was served. After hearing both the parties, by an order dated 20.07.1983, this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to the wife and children of 6 R.K.Subramanyam. After such remand, it appears the case was in cold storage for nearly more than twenty years. After receiving notice from the Land Reforms Tribunal, on 27.07.2004 the wife and children of R.K.Subramanyam filed their objections contesting the claim made in Form No.7. By that time, Siddappa the original applicant had died in the year 1997. Therefore, in support of his claim, his son Basappa examined himself as PW1. He also examined two villagers by name Chaluvappa as PW2 and one Jayaramappa as PW3. On behalf of the owners, Nirmala Ravindranath was examined. Both of them produced the RTCs.
5. On appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the applicants have established that they are cultivating the land as tenants of the land in question and therefore, it proceeded to grant Occupancy Rights in their favour by its order dated 12.01.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children of 7 late R.K.Subramanyam preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3834/2005. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children of R.K.Subramanyam are before this Court in this appeal.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge contended that late R.K.Subramanyam purchased this land in the year 1968. From 1968 upto 1973-74, the RTC stands in his name. Though for the earlier years in Column No.12 his name is not written, it is because the land was not under cultivation and it was fallow. Only for the subsequent period i.e, from 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 when he cultivated the land, his name was entered even in Column No.12 as the cultivator and it is shown that it is in his personal cultivation. For the first time, the name of Siddappa was entered in the RTC in the year 1974-75, without there being any order passed to mutate his name in accordance with 8 law and subsequently, his name finds a place. The question before the Land Reforms Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge was, who was the person who was cultivating the land as on the appointed date i.e, 01.03.1974. Admittedly, three years prior to 01.03.1974 the name of R.K.Subramanyam was entered in column No.12 and his name finds a place in the mutation records from the date of purchase in the year 1968 upto 1973-74. The said Siddappa who claimed tenancy rights has not produced any rent receipts. The mutation entry in the RTC for the period 1974-75 is of no consequence. The witnesses who have deposed are not the adjoining land owners. In the cross-examination, they have categorically stated that they have not seen any lease, rent receipts. Cultivation by Siddappa was known to them only through him and therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge committed serious error in ignoring the mutation entries and the presumptions flowing under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and 9 in holding that Siddappa is in cultivation of the land in question. Therefore, the order requires to be set aside.
7. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though the name of Siddappa is not entered in the RTC, prior to the date of vesting he was in actual cultivation of the land. He took the land from Shantamma and was paying vara to her. When she sold the property to R.K.Subramanyam, he was paying vara to her. He is a resident of the Village, whereas R.K.Subramanyam is not residing in the Village. He is residing at Bangalore. He is the Managing Director of S.K.F.Factory and he never cultivated the land. In those circumstances, the evidence of the villagers coupled with the fact that Siddappa's name came to be entered subsequent to 1974-75 by the Village Accountant after actually seeing his cultivation would substantiate the claim of tenancy which has been accepted by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge which is a question of fact. There is a 10 concurrent finding and that no case for interference is made out. The mutation entry is not sacrosanct. The presumption flowing under Section 133 could be rebutted by other evidence. In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence to rebutt the said presumption and therefore, he submits that no fault could be found with the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge and therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under:
"Whether the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were justified in granting Occupancy Rights in favour of Siddappa and his children ?"
9. The facts are not in dispute.
R.K.Subramanyam is the owner of the land in question. He purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1968 from its previous owner Shantamma. Immediately after purchase, RTC 11 entries were made in the name of R.K.Subramanyam. His name finds a place in Column Nos.9 and 10 in the initial years as the land was not cultivated. His name was not entered in the cultivator's Column at Column No.12. The entries therein shows it was left vacant (beedu). Therefore, his name was not shown in the cultivator's column. Once he started cultivating it i.e., from 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, his name finds a place even in Column No.12. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended came into force from 01.03.1974 and all tenanted lands in the State of Karnataka vested with the Government conferring rights on the tenants to seek for occupancy rights. Such tenants have to establish that prior to the date of vesting, they were cultivating the land in question as tenants. Then they would be entitled to the grant of Occupancy Rights. Siddappa filed an application in Form No.7 on 11.12.1975 claiming Occupancy Rights. This Siddappa is none other than the adjoining land owner. Though he impleaded R.K.Subramanyam as a party in the application in 12 form No.7, no notice was taken on him and exparte order granting Occupancy Rights was passed. Subsequently, R.K.Subramanyam died. After his death, his wife and children came to know of the said order and immediately they preferred a writ petition. It came to be allowed on 20.07.1983 remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Twenty long years nothing happened before the Land Reforms Tribunal. After notice, they appeared before the Land Reforms Tribunal and filed their counter on 27.07.2004 disputing the claim of the applicant. By that time in 1997, Siddappa also died and his LRs were brought on record. His son was examined as PW1 viz., Basappa. In his evidence, he has stated that his father took the land on lease from Subramanyam and his father was cultivating the said land. Admittedly, from the year 1969 when R.K.Subramanaym became the owner till 01.03.1974 and if Siddappa was cultivating the land, his name should have found a place in Column No.12 in the RTC. If he was paying any rent/vara, there should be some evidence by way 13 of receipt to show payment of vara. If he was paying half share as vara, acknowledging the same there should have been receipts. Admittedly, there are no receipts. Admittedly, there are no documents evidencing the lease. Admittedly, prior to the date of vesting, the name of Siddappa does not find a place in the RTCs. Two witnesses have been examined by name Chaluvappa and Jayaramappa. They are not adjoining owners and they are the villagers. Though in the examination-in-chief, they supported the case of the children of Siddappa, in the cross-examination they have categorically stated that they do not know anything about the lease. They have not seen rent receipts, they do not know in whose name the RTC entries stand and even regarding lease, they learnt from Siddappa. This is the evidence which is on record. In fact, from the records, we find Siddappa's children have produced a copy of the gift deed dated 23.11.1971 executed by G.C.Veerappa in favour of Siddappa along with Village map relating to Sy.No.77, which is adjacent to Sy.Nos.102 and 103. In the 14 schedule to the said land in the sale deed it is mentioned as under:
"To the East SKF Factory; to the West
R.K.Subramanyam's land; to the North
Muniyappa's land; to the South
Mantavalamatha R.K.Subramanyam's land."
10. This is a document of the year 1971. So it clearly shows that the land which was gifted to him is adjoining not only the aforesaid lands belonging to R.K.Subramanyam, but it is also adjoining S.K.F Factory where R.K.Subramanyam was working as Managing Director. If really he was cultivating the land of R.K.Subramanayam as a tenant, in the normal course, there would have been a recital that the said land is in possession which is conspicuously missing in this registered document which has come into effect at an undisputed point of time. The material on record also discloses that Siddappa's case was that he has taken the land on lease from Shantamma. His son who has given evidence has stated that the lease was taken only from 15 R.K.Subramanyam after the land was purchased by him. Whether the land was taken from R.K.Subramanayam or from Shantamma, absolutely there is no scrap of paper to substantiate the said claim. In the light of this evidence on record, the Tribunal committed serious error in recording a finding that the claim of tenancy is established. In fact, all that the Tribunal has done is to set out the said evidence, but they have not appreciated the evidence. They have ignored the evidentiary value and the presumptive value of the mutation entries prior to the date of vesting as contemplated under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Though it is rebuttable, to rebutt the presumption they should lead strong and convincing evidence. That evidence is missing in this case and therefore, the presumption flowing under Section 133 is not rebutted. It is in this context, both the learned Counsel have relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16
11. The first judgment on which reliance is placed in the case of MOHAN BALAKU PATIL VS. KRISHNOJI BHAURAO HUNDRE reported in (2000) 1 SCC 518 where at paragraphs-1 and 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"1. ..... The Tribunal, in order to ascertain as to who was in possession on the date on which the Act came into force, i.e., 01.03.1974, made a spot enquiry on 28.03.1981. It was found that the land was being cultivated by growing chilli, sugarcane, potato etc. which were standing on the land and on local enquiry, it was also found that the property in dispute was being cultivated by the appellants and they have actually been in possession of the same. The Tribunal noticed that a receipt dated 10.04.1950 had been issued by the owner of the land and kabuliyat had also been made on the same date. Subsequently, in the year 1956, a notice had been issued calling upon the tenant to give up possession of the land as the landlord required the same bona fide for his own cultivation. The documents thus indicated that the property in dispute was tenanted land. Subsequently in the Record of Rights in the year 1957, the 17 name of Bharama, brother of the father of the appellants, was deleted and it was shown that the land was under the personal cultivation of the owner. That entry did not show as to the circumstances in which the change was effected. The Tribunal found that the appellants were in actual possession of and were, in fact, cultivating the land and that there was material to show that the said land was tenanted land notwithstanding the entries made in the revenue records."
4. It appears to us that the appellate authority could not have placed any reliance on the subsequent revenue records inasmuch as the appellants had constructed the building on the land in dispute; that the electricity bills had been paid by them; that the land was in their possession. In the face of this finding of fact, the appellate authority could not arise the presumption under Section 133 of the Act that the entries made in the Record of Rights was correct. When a finding of fact had been recorded that the appellants had been in possession, it will be startling to hold that the respondent was himself cultivating the land. The rent paid by the appellants to the respondent and the partition in their family 18 had no bearing on the question of possession of the land and cultivation thereof. When, in fact, the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that the appellants were in possession, that factor should have weighed with the appellate authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the respondent that the appellants had constructed the building on the land and were paying charges in respect of the electric pump set used for irrigating the land and ought to have held that the appellants were cultivating the land. In addition, the land in question was shown not to be cultivated by the respondent as the respondent was residing nowhere near the land but at a faraway place and that the land was not cultivated personally by the owner and the persons cultivating the land were not members of their family nor was there any evidence that the appellants were servants or hired labourers on wages and (sic the appellate authority) ought to have, on that basis, held the appellants as deemed tenants in respect of the land. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in respect of the entries made in the Record of Rights stood displaced by the finding of fact recorded 19 that the appellants were in actual possession of the land and were cultivating the same. In the face of such an admission made by the respondent, it is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the appellate authority as affirmed by the High Court that in view of the entries made in the Record of Rights, the appellants could not be stated to be in possession of the land on the relevant date nor were they cultivating the same."
12. In the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that tenancy was created in the year 1950. In 1956 notice had been issued to the tenant calling upon him to deliver possession. Subsequently his name came to be deleted without an appropriate order from the competent authority. In that case, the Tribunal visited the spot to find out who is in possession. They examined the adjoining owners. It is on the basis of that evidence it was held that the presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act stands rebutted and though the RTC stood in the name of the land owner immediately prior to the date of vesting, it is 20 not sufficient to hold that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land.
13. Relying on the aforesaid judgment subsequently in the case of RAM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 7 SCC 796, it is held at paragraph-6 as under:
"6. ......No doubt, the RORs showed the name of Dattoba as the cultivator in respect of the entire land but the Tribunal having due regard to the spot inspection and local enquiry with the adjacent landowners, compromise deed showing partition in 1962 and also taking note that Dattoba being the manager of the joint family earlier, his name alone was found in the record of rights, came to the conclusion on facts that all the four applicants were entitled to grant of occupancy rights over their respective shares of land. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court in Mohan Balaku Patil vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre dealing with presumption available as to the correctness of entries in the record of rights under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and displacement of such presumption by a finding of fact to the contrary in 21 enquiry made by the Tribunal under Section 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in paragraph 4 has observed: (SCC pp. 520-21) "When, in fact, the Tribunal made local enquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that the appellants were in possession, that factor should have weighed with the appellate authority.... The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in respect of the entries made in the record of rights stood displaced by the finding of fact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of the land and were cultivating the same."
14. This is also a case where the Land Reforms Tribunal went to the spot made an inspection, held a local enquiry with the adjoining land owners and there was a compromise deed showing partition in the year 1962 and other relevant material. In that context, it was held that the presumption under Section 133 of the Act is rebutted.
15. That is not the position in this case. No inspection is done. No adjoining owners have been 22 examined in this case. Admittedly, the fact is that R.K.Subramanyam purchased the property in the year 1968. Mutation entries have been made in his name and when he started cultivating the land, even in the cultivator's column, his name is entered for three consecutive years immediately preceding the date of vesting. In the absence of any other material that presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act with reference to the said entries is not rebutted. In fact, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the effect of these entries.
16. In the case of Jagadeesh And Another Vs. State of Karnataka And Others reported in 2008(12) SCC 624 at paragraphs-12 and 13, it is held as under:
12. We have already noted the findings made by the High Court in the impugned judgment on the question whether the appellants could be held to be the tenants on the evidence and materials on record. While doing so, in our view, the High Court was justified in coming to the 23 conclusion that the evidence and materials on record would clearly establish that the appellants were not able to prove tht they were the tenants in respect of the scheduled land under the respondents. One of the main criteria for deciding whether a particular person is a tenant or not is to see whether there was payment of rent, either in cash or in kind. In this case, while rejecting he claim of the appellants, the High Court had considered that the appellants had failed to satisfy the Court that any payment of rent was made either by the father of the appellants or by the appellants themselves.
13. The tribunals below, while accepting the case of the appellants, had relied on the entries made in RTC record in respect of certain period.
While considering such entries, the High Court had rightly held that from the entries in RTC record for the years 1968 to 1974, the name of the appellants was not shown as the person in cultivation of the land in dispute and also the nature of cultivation of the land in dispute and also the nature of cultivation of the scheduled land was not shown as that of the tenants in the said RTC record. That being the position, the High Court had come to a proper conclusion that the entries in RTC extracts produced by the 24 appellants could not support the contention that they were cultivating the land in dispute as the tenants. In our view also, the High Court was fully justified in drawing the adverse inference against the appellants for not producing any geni receipts or any lease agreement to show that the 5th respondent before the High Court (Respondent 3 herein) had, infact, leased out the scheduled land in favour of the appellants or their father, since deceased, on crop-share basis and that the appellants had paid the geni to the 5th respondent. Such being the findings arrived at by the High Court with which we are in concurrence, it is difficult to hold that the tenancy claimed by the appellants in respect of the scheduled land could be established."
17. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi Vs. Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By LRs. (2010) 2 SCC 156 at paragraphs 12 and 13 as under:
12. From a careful examination of the findings given by the High Court, as quoted hereinabove, it would be clear that the High Court, while setting aside the concurrent orders of the Tribunals below, has rightly taken into 25 consideration that although the appellant tenant was claiming to be cultivating the land in question, he had failed to produce any receipt taken from the respondent landlords in lieu of rent and on the other hand, the High Court was fully justified in holding that the respondent landlords had produced the entries made in the record-of-rights relating to the land in question from the year 1962 which amply proved that the respondent landlords were cultivating the land in question and in the absence of any reliable evidence it was difficult to prove that the appellant tenant was in cultivation of the land in question.
13. We are also in agreement with the High Court, when the High Court had held that the statutory presumption arising out of the revenue record must be given due importance and mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal was not enough. It was for the Tribunal to give reasons to discard the entries made in the record-of-
rights. The High Court also, in our view, was fully justified that there was absolutely no rebuttal evidence led by he appellant tenant to show that though he was cultivating the land in question his name had not been entered for 26 some reason or even due to the high-
handedness of the respondent landlords."
18. Therefore, in the instant case, prior to the date of vesting, the name of the land owner is entered in the RTC even in cultivator's column. When there are no rent receipts evidencing payment of rent, when there is no receipts showing payment of half share of the produce grown, when the Tribunal did not make any spot inspection and when they did not examine the adjoining land owners, the presumption flowing under Section 133 is not rebutted. Coupled with this, the gift deed under which Siddappa claims title to property bearing No.77 which is adjoining this property in question, the recitals therein make it absolutely clear that Siddappa was not cultivating the land. It is unfortunate, taking advantage of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, coupled with the fact that R.K.Subramanyam was the Managing Director of S.K.F.Factory, which factory had purchased the lands adjoining these lands, an attempt is made to knock off the property. The Land 27 Reforms Act was not intended to benefit these types of applicants. It was intended for the benefit of those farmers who were cultivating the land for years and the policy of the Government being the tiller of the land should be made the owner, these lands vested with the Government and a provision was made for conferment of Occupancy Rights. Siddappa was not the tiller of the land. He was not a tenant, but he was adjoining owner of the land in question. Taking advantage of the change in the law, he has made an attempt and he has been successful in getting an order twice before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we are satisfied the tenancy pleaded by Siddappa is not established. The land in question is not a tenanted land. The provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not attracted. Therefore, the application in Form No.7 is liable to be dismissed.
19. Hence, we pass the following :
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.28
ii) The orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal are hereby set aside.
iii) The application filed by Siddappa in Form No.7 on 11.12.1975 is dismissed.
The parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-