Telangana High Court
K. Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2023
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 1226 of 2023
Between:
K. Srinivas and others
... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 04.07.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 1226 of 2023
% 04.07.2023
Between:
# K. Srinivas and others
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr Bokaro Lokeshwar Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents 1&2 : G.P. for Land Acquisition
^ Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr A.Venkatesh
? Cases Referred:
1. 1997 (1) SCC 134
2. (2004) 6 SCC 765
3. (2010) 7 SCC 129
4. 2015(7) SCC 21
5. (2004) 8 SCC 733
3
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 1226 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned senior designate counsel, Sri A. Venkatesh, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the award proceedings dated 01.11.2022 in the File No. AA/61/2016 as contrary to the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, more particularly Section 26 & 29 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and further declare the action of the respondents in repeatedly passing an award contrary to the provision of LA Act (30 of 2013) and the judgement of this in W .P. No. 21380 of 2021 as colorable exercise of power and for extraneous considerations and consequently direct the respondents to pass an award by following the provision of LA Act (30 of 2013) scrupulously.
4
3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioners are the absolute owners and the possessors of flats (15) in Laxmi Towers bearing Municipal No. No. 2-2-
1075/2, Amberpet, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad (herein referred to as "Subject Property"). The apartment has been built in accordance with Municipal Norms, U/S 428, 433, 392 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, vide Permit NO.194/38 of 2002 in File No. 0340/CSC/TP3/2001.
b) Petitioners filed W.P. No. 34560 of 2018 praying to declare the action of the Respondents in issuing Letter No. 44/RW/ACP/C-9B/GHMC/2016 dated June 2017/individual notices as illegal, arbitrary, against all tenets of law, and consequently direct the Respondents either to completely take the total area of the subject property or abstain from the acquisition of the same. The said court was pleased to issue an Order to "maintain status-quo" vide its Order dated 03.10.2018.
c) Whilst maintaining status-quo with respect to the Subject Property, the Respondents concluded the acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and 5 Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act or LA Act) and passed an Award dated 11.10.2019. Subsequently, in February, 2019 the Respondents issued Public Notice under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the LA Act 2019 inviting interested people for award enquiry on 14.03.2019 and on the said day Respondent No. 3 failed to attend the meeting but through its personnel collected signatures of the Petitioners on attendance-sheet.
d) On 14.03.2019, Petitioners furnished a detailed representation and an independent valuation report of the property to the respondents. The award proceedings for 143.92 Sq. yards pertaining to the Preliminary-Notification dated 26.07.2017 concluded without any consideration of the Petitioners objections and rejecting the request for acquisition of property under Section 94 of the LA Act by falsely claiming that the petitioners participated in the Award enquiry.
e) Contrary to the provision of Section 37 (2) of LA Act, Respondents failed in their solemn duty to communicate the Award proceeding dated 11.10.2019 and instead issued Notice 6 dated 06.02.2020 under Section 38 (1) of the LA Act directing the Petitioner to vacate and deliver possession of land/structure contemplated to be acquisitioned under Letter No. 44/RW/ACP/C-9B/GHMC/2016 Dt: June 2017.
f) Subsequently, the petitioner C.C.No.341 of 2020 against Respondents No.3. Through its order dated 13.03.2020, the respondents were directed to show cause for proceedings against them for non-compliance of Order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P. 34560 of 2019. However, the respondents through their counter affidavit remained silent on acquisition of the entire premises.
g) The Respondents thereafter issued a Preliminary Notification through a newspaper, dated 02.02.2021 under Section 11 of the LA Act for acquisition of 398.81 Sq. yards of the property, and provided a time- period of 60 days for filing objections and claims etc. by the interested persons. The Petitioners provided their objections and grievances whilst appreciating that entire premises is being considered to be acquisitioned, vide Letter dated 16.03.2021. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 issued Proceedings No. AA/61/2016, dated 26.03.2021, passing orders under Section 15(3) of the L.A. 7 Act 2013 incorrectly claiming that the Petitioners have requested for acquisition of land under Section 94 (1) of the LA Act.
h) The Respondents thereafter allegedly issued Form-D dated 04.02.2021 inviting the Petitioner to appear on 06.02.2021 to state their willingness to settle their claims through the Negotiations Committee. Eventually, the petitioners could not attend the meeting since they were not aware of Form-D
i) On 07.04.2021, a notice was issued by the Respondents under section 21 and 22 of the LA Act and invited the petitioners (interested persons) for a meeting, along with documents for evaluation of award on 06.05.2021. Due to pandemic (Covid-19), Petitioners (majority of whom are senior citizens) requested for rescheduling the meeting through a representation dated 05.05.2021.
j) However, Respondent No. 3 issued Notice of Award dated 10.06.2021 (individual notices) without any consideration to the representation made by the petitioners and orders dated 07.06.2021, passed by the Respondent No. 2 were also served.
8
k) Thereafter, representations were made by the petitioners to the Respondents with respect to the reference to Authority under Section 64 of the LA Act along with Sale Deed (25) as the Award was passed by taking the market-value as Preliminary-Notification (Section 11) dated 26.07.2017 instead of the market value as on Preliminary-Notification (Section 11) dated 02.02.2021.
l) On 16.08.2021, a notice was issued by the Respondent stating the Award proceedings are concluded, therefore Petitioners are required to collect the cheques and handover vacant possession of the premises. Later, on 30.08.2021, the Respondents pasted Notice under Section 38 (1) of LA Act to the compound wall of the property and dated it to be 25.08.2021, by providing the petitioners time until 09.09.2021 to handover the possession of the property.
m) Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners instituted W.P. No. 21380 of 2021 against the actions of the Respondents (therein) in clubbing finalized Award Proceedings dated 11.10.2019 and 27.05.2021. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was allowed directing the "Respondents therein to 9 recommence the award enquiry in File No. A4/61/2016 for determination of the market value in respect of remaining extent of the property bearing Municipal No. 2-2-1075/2, Amberpet, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, after deleting the extent of property and land admeasuring 143.91 Sq. yards forming part of the Award dated 11.10.2019 by complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 11 read with Section 26 and 28 of the Act 30 of 2013 and pay compensation to the petitioner with a period 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
n) Further, the Petitioners vide letter dated 17.10.2022 provided all the sale deeds in support of each members' interest in the property. Further, petitioner also furnished 25 (twenty-five) sale deeds of similar properties in the vicinity of the property (contemplated to be acquired) for reference of the Respondents.
o) Thereafter, Respondents issued Notice of Award dt:
07.11.2022 under Section 37(2) of LA Act to each of the petitioner, and passed the Award Proceedings dated 01.11.2022. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed C.C. No. 10 2323 of 2022 in W.P. No. 21380 of 2021 before this court on ground that the Award in the above-mentioned proceedings are in blatant violation of the Order dated 29.08.2022 in W.P. No. 21380 of 2021.
p) However, on 28.12.2023, Respondent No. 3 along with other personnel arrived at the property with JCB and pulled- down part of the compound wall. This action of the Respondent is arbitrary and illegal considering the fact that Respondent failed to issue a Notice under section 38 of LA Act. Hence this Writ Petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD Relevant portion of the Award No.AA/61/2016, dt. 01.11.2012 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad.
(01) Laxmi Towers:
This property bears the premises No.2-2-1075/2 having G+3 and Pent House structure. It is located at a distance of 10 feet of Flyover from Golnaka Shalem Church to Mukaram Hotel (Irani Hotel) (VIA) 6 No. 'X' Road and Amberpet Junction. The property is bounded by 33 feet road towards East main road towards South, house belonging to Sri S.S.Desh pandey bearing No.2- 11 2-1075/3 towards North. There is a building with G+3 & Pent House towards West. Enquiry reveals and by appearance the building is of more than (10) years.
All the above property under inspection are in lanes and by-lanes within a distance of 1 furlong to 1 ½ miles of the property under present acquisition, i.e. Laxmi Towers, having 2 to 5 years of age. The sales took place over the properties for which (25) documents filed by the persons interested on 17.10.2022 are executed on FLATS, which are composite rates. The documents filed have not been considered in fixing the LAND VALUE of the property under present acquisition and rejected.
REPRESENTATION U/SECTION 94 OF ACT 30 OF 2013 The persons notified/interested holding property in Premises No.20201075/2 (Laxmi Towers) have represented through their Advocate B.Lokeshwar Reddy that due to acquisition of an extent of 143.87 sq. yards vide award dated 27.05.2021 and an extent of 398.81 sq. yads. Notified vide Gazettee No.GHMC - 47 dated 30.03.2021, to consider acquisition of entire extent of the property bearing municipal No.2-2-75/2 along with (15) apartments, in accordance with procedure laid in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 vide dated 30.12.2020. The same is considered under Section 94 of Act 30 of 2013 and an extent of 456.13 12 sq. yards is taken into consideration for passing of the present award."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
5. The main contentions put forth by the counsel for the Petitioner are as follows :
1. That the impugned Award dt. 01.11.2022 is contrary to Section 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the LA Act, 2013.
2. The order dt. 29.08.2022 in W.P.No.21380/2021 has not been implemented in its true spirit.
3. The Respondent No.3 has considered only 543.1 sq. yards out of entire 600 sq. yards of the property, but however under "Title and Apportionment at page 60 it is mentioned that the extent is 456.08 sq. yards".
4. U/s.11 Notification dated 26.11.2017 the Respondents contemplated to acquire 143.92 sq. yards and therefore the land remaining for acquisition shall be 456.08 sq. yards.
5. A bare perusal of the relevant portion of the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in WP No.21380/2021 in particular at para 13 reads as under :13
"The Writ Petition is allowed. As there is a dispute regarding actual extent of the remaining property, it is left to the Land Acquisition Officer to determine such claim during the award enquiry. The respondents are directed to recommence the award enquiry in File No.AA/61/2016 for determination of the market value in respect of remaining extent of the property bearing Municipal No.2-2-1075/2, Amberpet, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, after deleting the extent of property and land admeasuring 143.91 sq.yards forming part of the award dated 11.10.2019 by complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 11 read with sections 26 and 28 of the Act 30 of 2013 and pay the compensation to the petitioner within a period of Two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6. The counter affidavit filed by 3rd Respondent in particular - Paras 17, 18 and 19 read as under :
" 17. I state that, after passing of the above award dated 01.11.2022, the following individual cheques pertaining to first and second Awards were prepared and sent for disbursement to the residents of Lakshmi Towers as per their request to acquire the remaining extent of land and building admeasuring 399. 23 sq. yards and also in compliance to the Hon'ble High Court directions, dated 29.08.2022 in W.P.No.21380 of 2021, but was refused to receive the same.14
18. I state that there is no violation of the orders/directions in W.P.No.21380 of 2021, dated 29.08.2022 as alleged by the petitioner's in the prayer in the present Writ Petition No.1226 of 2023 and in fact, the directions of the Hon'ble Court were scrumptiously followed by the respondents.
19. I state that, the claim made by the petitioner's at para 2 of the petitioner's affidavit that premises No.2-2- 1075/2, (Lakshmi towers) Amberpet, Hyderabad is measuring 600 Sq yards is totally false. As per the title documents submitted by the Flat owners on 17-10-2022 the total extent of Lakshmi towers apartment H.No.2-2- 1075/2 is 543.10 Sq yards. According to Building permission granted by permit No.194/38 of 2002 in File No.0340/CSC/TP-3/2001 the net plot area permitted for construction is 541.72 Sq yards the area for determination after deleting 143.91 Sq yards covered by award is 543.10 (-) 143.91 = 399.23 Sq yards for which award has been passed vide award proceeding dated.01-11- 2022 the writ petitioners may be put to strict proof as to the claim made by them."
7. The learned senior designate counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent contends as follows :
(i) That in compliance to the orders of the Court dt. 29.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.21380/2021, notice 15 U/s.21, 22 of the Act was issued and served fixing the date for award enquiry on 17.10.2022.
(ii) The total extent of the Laxmi Tower Apartment in No.2-2-1075/2, Amberpet, New Nallkunta, Hyderabad is 543.10 sq. yards and according to the building permission granted the net plot area permitted for construction is 541.72 sq. yards.
(iii) The Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad has furnished the basic value of the property Municipal No.2-1075/2. Amberpet Village to Rs.38,000/- per sq. yard and sale date for crucial period vide letter No.763/2022, dt. 13.10.2022.
(iv) The award for the remaining extent of 399.23 sq. yards has also been passed, but the Petitioners have intentionally refused to take the compensation.
(v) The writ petition needs to be dismissed in view of the remedy available to the petitioners under Sections 64 and 69 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transperancy in land Acquisition, Rehabilition and Resettlement Act, 2013.16
(vi) In a judgment dated 19.11.1996 of the Apex Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta and another v State of Maharastra and others reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, in particular, para 10, reads as under:
"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some 17 cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests.18
Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.
(ii) In a Judgment dated 13.04.2004 of the Apex Court in Hira Tikkoo v Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 765, in particular, Paragraph 22, reads as under:
"In public law in certain situations, relief to the parties aggrieved by action or promises of public authorities can be granted on the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' but when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into service. We may usefully call in aid Legal Maxim : 'Salus populi est suprema lex :
regard for the public welfare is the highest law. This principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good'."
(iii) The judgment dated 05.05.2010 of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others v Banagalore 19 Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 in particular, paras 158, 159 held as under:
"158. Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents of notified lands, render the acquisitions meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will have no alternative but to quash the entire acquisition. But where many landlosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation, and where possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken, and development activities have been carried out by laying plots and even making provisional or actual allotments, those factors have to be taken note of, while granting relief. The Division Bench has made an effort to protect the interests of all parties, on the facts and circumstances, by issuing detailed directions. But implementation of these directions may lead to further litigations and complications.
159. To salvage the acquisition and to avoid hardships to BDA and its allottees and to avoid prolonged further rounds of litigations emanating from the directions of the High Court, a more equitable way would be to uphold the decision of the Division Bench, but subject BDA's actions to certain corrective measures by requiring it to re-examine certain aspects and provide an option to the landlosers to secure some additional benefit, as an incentive to accept the acquisition. A 20 direction to provide an option to the landlosers to seek allotment of developed plots in lieu of compensation or to provide for preferential allotment of some plots at the prevailing market price in addition to compensation will meet the ends of justice. Such directions will not be in conflict with the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, as they are intended to save the acquisitions. If the acquisitions are to be quashed in entirety by accepting the challenges to the acquisition on the ground of arbitrary deletions and exclusions, there may be no development scheme at all, thereby putting BDA to enormous loss. The directions of the High Court and this Court are warranted by the peculiar facts of the case and are not intended to be general directions applicable to regular acquisitions in accordance with law, without any irregularities."
(iv) The judgment dated 14.05.2015 of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 21, in particular, para 46, reads as under:
"Para 46. Thus, we have a scenario where, on the hand, invocation of urgency provisions under section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay 21 in challenging these acquisitions by the landowners, development have taken place in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this court in Bondu Ramaswamy came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed abadi land at a higher rate i.e., 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners against the eligibility and the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. "
v) The judgment dated 01.11.2004 of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee v State of Orissa and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 733, in particular para 22, reads as under:
"In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalization of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and 22 regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. It can be stated in a way that power to plan development of city and to regulate the building activity therein flows from the police power of the state. The exercise of such governmental power is justified on account of its being reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and ecological considerations; though an unnecessary or unreasonable inter- meddling with the private ownership of the property may not be justified.
8. This Court opines that the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, reads as under:
"Reference to Authority (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, 23 whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made--
(a) person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.
9. The grievance of the Petitioner in relation to the market value of the land is answered in detail at para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent GHMC. A 24 bare perusal of Section 64(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transperancy in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 clearly indicates that all the grievances raised by the petitioner can be resolved before the competent Authority.
10. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by the Apex Court (1) judgment dated 19.11.1996 of the Apex Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta and another v State of Maharastra and others reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, (2) Judgment dated 13.04.2004 of the Apex Court in Hira Tikkoo v Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 765, (3) judgment dated 05.05.2010 of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and others v Banagalore Development Authority and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129, (4) judgment dated 14.05.2015 of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (7) SCC 21 and (5) judgment dated 01.11.2004 of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee v State of 25 Orissa and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 733 (referred to and extracted above) the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authority as provided for under Section 64 and 69 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013, and to raise all the issues raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition before the competent Authority. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 04.07.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm