REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1058-1060 OF 2004

NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D)  BY LRS. & ORS.            …. Appellants

Versus

DEPUTY COLLECTOR & LA & ANR.    …. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1061-1065 OF 2004

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1066-1078 OF 2004

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2004

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. By this common judgment and order we propose to  

dispose of all the aforesaid appeals which are connected  

and  interrelated,  as  would  be  indicated  from  the  facts  

delineated hereinafter.

2.By issuing  a  notification  under  Section 4  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]  

on 21.02.1986, land connected with the present appeals,  

situated at Village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat  

in the State of Gujarat, was proposed to be acquired for a  

public  purpose,  viz.,  setting  up  a  Gas  Based  Thermal  

Power  Project  belonging  to  National  Thermal  Power  

Corporation  [for  short  ‘NTPC’].  Subsequent  to  the  

aforesaid notification, a declaration under Section 6 of the  

Act was also issued by the State Government, by issuing a  

notification dated 29.04.1986 in respect of the said land.  

Possession  of  the  said  land  was  also  taken  over  on  

18.06.1986  and  an  award  was  passed  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Officer, determining market value of the land  

and awarding compensation at ` 3.50 per square meter for  

the acquired land.  

3.Aggrieved  by  the  compensation  awarded  by  the  Land  

Acquisition  Officer,  the  appellants-claimants  filed  

applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference  

to the Court. Consequent to the said prayer, reference was  

made to the District Court. The Reference Court allowed  

I 2

the parties to present their evidence and on conclusion of  

the trial, passed a judgment and order dated 25.07.1997  

enhancing the market value of the land and determining  

the  compensation  at  ` 20  per  square  meter  for  the  

acquired land. It is also to be noted at this stage that the  

Reference Court further awarded interest at the rate of 9  

per cent per annum for the first year of taking over the  

possession of the land in the year 1986, and at 15 per  

cent thereafter. The Reference Court also passed an order  

expressly  recording  that  the  interest  should  not  be  

calculated on solatium.  

4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed  

by  the  Reference  Court,  the  appellants-claimants  filed  

appeals before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act  

seeking  enhancement  of  compensation.  Cross-appeals  

were also filed by the beneficiary,  viz., NTPC. During the  

pendency  of  the  said  appeals  in  the  High  Court,  an  

interim  order  was  also  passed  in  Civil  Application  by  

staying  payment  of  the  enhanced  amount  of  

compensation.  Subsequently,  when  the  appellants-

claimants filed applications, the order of stay was vacated  

I 3

and  the  land  owners  were  permitted  to  withdraw  the  

entire amount deposited in Reference Court [inclusive of  

cost  and  interest]  without  security  in  full  and  final  

settlement of the claims.  

5.The Division  Bench of  the  High Court  disposed of  the  

aforesaid  appeals  by  the  impugned  common  judgment  

and order dated 15.09.2000 in which it partly allowed the  

First  Appeal  Nos.  5388-5408  of  1997  filed  by  the  

appellants-claimants and determined the market value of  

the  acquired  land  of  Village  Mora,  Taluka  Choriyasi,  

District Surat on the relevant date, i.e., 21.02.1986, at the  

rate of  ` 22 per square meter. The High Court, however,  

specifically  ordered  that  no  interest  under  Sections  28  

and 34 of the Act on additional amount of compensation  

received under Section 23(1-A) & Section 23(2) of the Act  

would be paid to the claimants. By the same order, the  

High Court  dismissed the First  Appeal  Nos.  742-792 of  

1998 filed by the respondents.

6.The  appellants-claimants  being  aggrieved  by  the  

aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court,  

filed Special Leave Petitions in this Court in which notices  

I 4

were originally issued but subsequently, the delay in filing  

the Special Leave Petition Nos. 21068-21070 of 2001 was  

condoned  and  leave  was  granted.  So  far  as  the  other  

connected  Special  Leave  Petitions  were  concerned,  in  

those petitions also, leave was granted and accordingly all  

the petitions have been now registered as appeals.  

7.We  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties  

when the matters were placed before us for hearing their  

respective arguments. We also perused the entire records  

of the case with the assistance of the counsel appearing  

for the parties to which reference shall  be made during  

the course of our discussion and findings recorded by us.  

8.The  Chief  Project  Manager  [GTPP],  Delhi,  made  a  

proposal  on  16.12.1985  to  the  State  Government  for  

acquiring  lands  situated  at  the  Village  Mora,  Taluka  

Choriyasi,  District  Surat  for  the  purpose  of  Gas  Base  

Thermal Power Project for NTPC. The said proposal was  

scrutinized  by  the  State  Government  and  upon  being  

satisfied by the same, a preliminary notification to acquire  

lands  of  the  appellants-claimants  was  issued  under  

Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  which  was  published  in  the  

I 5

Government  Gazette  on  21.02.1986.  The  Deputy  

Collector,  Choriyasi  was  appointed  as  Land  Acquisition  

Officer for the aforesaid acquisition proceeding, who after  

following  usual  procedure  under  Section  5  of  the  Act,  

forwarded  his  report  to  the  State  Government  as  

contemplated  by  Section  5A(2)  of  the  Act.  Consequent  

thereto, the State Government issued a declaration under  

Section  6  of  the  Act  which  was  published  in  the  

Government  Gazette  on  29.04.1986.  The  appellants-

claimants thereafter appeared before the Land Acquisition  

Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of ` 1,50,000  

per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering  

the  records,  passed  his  award  dated  18.01.1988  by  

dividing  the  acquired  lands  into  three  categories  and  

determining  market  value  of  the  land  in  the  following  

manner: -

• Acquired lands situated at North of Surat-Hazira State  Highway at the rate of ` 35,000 per hectare, i.e., ` 3.50  per square meter.

• Acquired lands situated towards South of Surat-Hazira  State Highway at the rate of  ` 32,000 per hectare, i.e.,  `3.20 per square meter.

• Acquired  lands  situated  towards  interior  South  of  Surat-Hazira State Highway at the rate of ` 30,000 per  hectare, i.e., ` 3 per square meter.

I 6

The Land Acquisition Officer by his award determined the  

market value of  Kharab land, admeasuring 30 acre at the  

rate of 36 square meter at the rate ` 1 per square meter.

9.As stated hereinbefore, reference cases were filed which  

were registered as Land References Case Nos. 118-168 of  

1988. All the said land reference cases were consolidated  

and the parties led common evidences in the Reference  

Case  No.  140  of  1988.  Reference  Court  enhanced  the  

market value of the land and determined the same at the  

rate of  ` 20 per square meter. The Reference Court also  

ordered that additional compensation shall be paid to the  

complainants with solatium at the rate of 30 per cent per  

annum on the aforesaid enhanced compensation and also  

held that the claimants would be entitled to get 12 per  

cent  additional  market  value  from  the  date  of  the  

notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Act,  i.e.,  from  

21.02.1986 till 16.06.1986. The claimants were also held  

to be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 9 per cent  

per annum for the first year of taking over of possession of  

the land in the year 1986 and at the rate of 15 per cent  

per annum thereafter, excluding the amount of solatium  

I 7

till the realization of the amount by the claimants. In the  

said judgment, specific orders were made by the Reference  

Court that no amount of interest shall be calculated on  

the  amount  of  solatium.  Since  some of  the  lands  were  

admittedly of new tenure lands, 5 per cent of the amount  

of award was deducted for the new tenure lands.

10.Appeals  were  filed  by  both  the  appellants  and  the  

respondents before the High Court. So far as the appeals  

of the appellants-claimants are concerned, their appeals  

were partly allowed by enhancing the market value of the  

land and determining the  same at  the  rate  of  ` 22 per  

square meter. But the High Court did not grant interest  

under  Section  28  and  34  on  additional  amount  of  

compensation under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act  

and held further  that no interest  shall  also be paid on  

solatium  whereas  the  appeals  filed  by  the  NTPC  were  

dismissed in entirety.  

11.The  present  appeals  are  registered  as  against  the  

aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court. Learned  

counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellants-claimants  

primarily raised two issues during the course of hearing.  

I 8

The  first  submission  of  the  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties  concerned  the  market  value  of  the  land  as  

determined  by  the  courts  below.  According  to  them,  in  

terms of the documentary as also oral evidence on record,  

the market value of the land should have been determined  

at  least  at  the rate of  ` 33 per square meter.  The next  

contention of  the  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants-

claimants  was  regarding  entitlement  of  appellants  to  

payment  of  interest  on  additional  amount  of  

compensation and solatium.

12.Let us first deal with the first issue which relates to  

determination of the fair and reasonable market value of  

the land. In order to appreciate the rival  contentions of  

the parties, as to whether the market value of the land  

should  be  determined  at  ` 33  per  square  meter  as  

submitted  by  the  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants-

claimants or whether it should be determined at ` 22 per  

square meter as held by the High Court, we have perused  

various  documentary  evidence  placed  on  record  by  the  

parties.  The appellants  produced various  sale  instances  

which were considered by the High Court as Exhibits 102-

I 9

121  relating  to  Village  Kawas.  The  said  sale  instances  

were  relied  upon  by  the  appellants  and  they  were  

executed  between  the  years  1985-1988.  The  sale  

instances evidenced in Exhibits 102, 103 and 104 were  

found to have been executed prior to the date of issuance  

of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but at the  

same time it must not be ignored that when the aforesaid  

three  sale  instances  took  place,  notification  for  the  

establishment of the aforesaid Gas Project was already in  

existence (which was issued in the year 1984). Therefore,  

the aforesaid sale instances also cannot be said to be a  

very safe guide for determining the market value of the  

land. Besides, the said sale instances also relate to a very  

small tract of land admeasuring only 58 square meter to  

60  square  meter.  The  said  plots  also  concern  non-

agricultural  land. From the evidence adduced, it  is also  

established that the vendor in the aforesaid sale instances  

had  first  converted  agricultural  lands  into  non-

agricultural lands and divided them into small plots with  

a view to earn profits and sell the said plots to different  

persons. Consequently, the aforesaid sale deeds cannot be  

said to be a safe guide for the purpose of determination of  

I 10

the market value of the present lands. Therefore, we are of  

the opinion that the High Court was justified in keeping  

the said sale deeds out of its consideration.  

13.The appellants have also placed reliance on sale deed  

Exhibit No. 263 which was in respect of land admeasuring  

750 square feet for  a consideration of  Rs.  9,999/-.  The  

evidence  adduced indicates  that  the  vendee  of  the  said  

sale  deed  was  in  dire  need  of  accommodation  and,  

therefore,  he  purchased  the  same.  That  being  the  

consideration and since the said land is also a small piece  

of land, the High Court and the Reference Court rightly  

did not took the same into consideration.  

14.Similarly,  in so far as the sale deed Exhibit No. 144 is  

concerned, the same relates to agricultural land of Survey  

No. 523 admesauring 2 acre and 11 guntas situated at  

village Ichhapore,  which is a different village altogether.  

The said sale deed also relates to a plot of land which was  

adjacent  to  the  vendees’  own agricultural  land and the  

agreement to sale was also not registered and produced  

before  the  Reference  Court.  Besides,  vendor  and  the  

vendee in the said/same case are related to each other  

I 11

and, therefore, the aforesaid sale deed also could not have  

been accepted by the High Court as reliable evidence on  

the issue of determination of the market value of the land.  

The  Village  Icchapore  was  also  at  a  distance  of  two  

kilometers  from  the  acquired  lands.  There  is  no  other  

evidence in the nature of  any sale  deed from the same  

Village Mora wherein the acquired land was situated. The  

High Court held that the aforesaid sale price of Exhibit  

No.  144 cannot be said to be the market  value for  the  

acquired land for various reasons, viz., it was situated in a  

different  Village,  and it  relates  to  small  portion of  land  

(since no prudent purchaser would have purchased large  

extent of lands on the basis of sale of small land in open  

market). The High Court, however, held that a deduction  

of  minimum  1/3rd from  the  price  fixed  for  the  lands  

covered in Exhibit No. 144 towards development charges  

might  be  applied  to  ascertain  the  market  value  of  the  

present  acquired  lands.  The  High  Court  also  held  that  

Exhibit  No.  144  has  been  executed  9  months  after  

issuance of  the notification under  Section 4 of  the Act.  

Having  held  thus,  the  High  Court  after  applying  the  

formula  for  deduction  of  1/3rd amount  from  the  rate  

I 12

mentioned in Exhibit No. 144, i.e., ` 33 per square meter,  

the  High  Court  determined  the  market  value  of  the  

acquired land at ` 22 per square meter.  

15.We may at this stage also add that the said figure of `  

22 per square meter is the amount determined as market  

value for lands of adjacent village Kawas by this Court in  

Civil Appeal Nos. 11924-11934 of 1996 with respect of the  

acquisition made by issuing notification under Section 4  

of the Act on 15.12.1986.  

16.The quality  of  acquired land is  established from the  

evidence  on  record,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  no  

agricultural operations were carried out in the said land  

and that only grass, which was used as fodder for cattle,  

was grown in the said land. It could not be established by  

the  appellants-claimants  that  there  was  any  crop  of  

wheat, cotton and jowar on the acquired lands. The only  

evidence  that  has  come  to  light  is  that  some  of  the  

claimants  were  carrying  on  the  business  of  milk  

distribution  and  they  were  keeping  cattle  and  were  

raiIsing grass on acquired land for providing fodder to the  

cattle.  The  witnesses  examined  on  behalf  of  the  

I 13

respondents,  however,  clearly  stated  that  the  acquired  

lands  were  badly  damaged  due  to  flood  waters  as  the  

same  were  situated  in  low-lying  area  and  having  an  

uneven level. Reliance was also placed on survey report  

Exhibit  No.  285  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  which  

indicates  and  describes  the  acquired  lands  as  badly  

damaged lands due to flooding of the river Tapti and the  

entry of sea water. Paragraph 3.3 of the aforesaid survey  

report also indicates that a number of nullhas existing in  

the area get slightly topped due to tidal effect and as the  

acquired land used to be flooded with water from the sea,  

therefore, it was also not possible to raise any agricultural  

crop except for growing grass in the said land. Another  

witness, viz., Vimalchandra Jeshmal Kotari, examined on  

behalf of the respondent, also deposed that acquired land  

was uneven and water  had stagnated on the  same.  He  

also deposed that when he first visited the acquired land  

in July, 1986 he even found it very difficult  to walk on  

certain portions of the land. He has clearly stated in his  

evidence that the acquired land was low level  land and  

water from sea use to enter the land at the time of tide  

and,  therefore,  water  had stagnated  on acquired  lands.  

I 14

His evidence also establishes the  fact  that said leveling  

work was required to be done in the acquired land and  

that  a  total  amount  of  ` 76,86,280  was  spent  only  for  

leveling  the  land.  He  also  deposed  that  because  of  the  

presence of sulphates and nitrates in the soil of acquired  

lands, special precautions were required to be taken while  

erecting  the  foundation  of  the  project.  It  is  well-

established that the expenditure was incurred solely  by  

the  respondents  in  leveling  the  lands.  The  respondents  

also  too took special  care  in erecting the  foundation of  

thermal power station which was established there due to  

availability of water, electricity and HPJ Gas pipeline.

17.Having considered the aforesaid evidence on record,  

we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  market  value  of  the  

acquired land as determined by the High Court is just and  

reasonable and the same could be accepted as reasonable  

compensation  for  the  land  which  was  acquired  by  the  

State  Government  for  establishment  of  the  aforesaid  

thermal project. Therefore, the contentions of the counsel  

appearing for  the  appellants  for  increase  in  the  market  

I 15

value of the land are found to be without any basis and  

the same are rejected.  

18.On the second issue which was raised regarding the  

payment of interest on solatium and additional amount of  

compensation,  reliance  was  placed  by  the  counsel  

appearing for the parties in the case of  Sunder v. Union  

of India reported at (2001) 7 SCC 211; Gurpreet Singh  

v. Union  of  India reported  at  (2006)  8  SCC  457 and  

Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner & Anr  

v. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors reported at JT 2010  

(7) SC 475.     

19.In the case of Sunder (supra), this Court in paragraph  

23 has stated thus:-

“23….We  make  it  clear  that  the  compensation  awarded  would  include  not  only  the  total  sum arrived  at  as  per  sub- section  (1)  of  Section 23 but the remaining   sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear   from  Section  34  that  the  expression  “awarded amount” would mean the amount  of  compensation  worked out in  accordance  with the provisions contained in Section 23,  including all the sub-sections thereof.”

In paragraph 24, the Court further held as follows:-

I 16

“24.  The  proviso  to  Section  34  of  the  Act  makes the position further clear. The proviso  says that “if such compensation” is not paid   within  one  year  from  the  date  of  taking  possession of the land, interest shall stand  escalated to 15% per annum from the date of   expiry of the said period of one year “on the  amount  of  compensation  or  part  thereof   which has not been paid or deposited before  the date of such expiry”. It  is inconceivable  that the solatium amount would attract only  the escalated rate of interest from the expiry  of  one  year  and  that  there  would  be  no  interest  on  solatium  during  the  preceding  period. What the legislature intended was to   make  the  aggregate  amount  under  Section  23  of  the  Act  to  reach  the  hands  of  the   person as and when the award is passed,   at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the   possession of his land. Any delay in making   payment of the said sum should enable the   party to have interest on the said sum until   he  receives  the  payment.  Splitting  up  the  compensation  into  different components for  the  purpose  of  payment  of  interest  under  Section 34 was not in the contemplation of  the  legislature  when  that  section  was   framed or enacted.”

20.The  aforesaid  decision came for  consideration  before  

this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh case [supra] and  

in paragraph 54 of the said judgment the Constitutional  

Bench of this Court held thus: -

“54. One other question also was sought to   be  raised  and  answered  by  this  Bench  though not referred to it. Considering that the   question arises in various cases pending in  courts all over the country, we permitted the  counsel to address us on that question. That   question  is  whether  in  the  light  of  the   decision  in  Sunder,  the  awardee/decree- holder would be entitled to claim interest on  

I 17

solatium  in  execution  though  it  is  not  specifically granted by the decree. It  is well   settled  that  an  execution  court  cannot  go  behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for  interest on solatium had been made and the  same has been negatived either expressly or  by necessary implication by the judgment or   decree  of  the  Reference  Court  or  of  the   appellate court, the execution court will have  necessarily to reject the claim for interest on  solatium based on Sunder on the ground that   the  execution  court  cannot  go  behind  the  decree.  But  if  the  award  of  the  Reference  Court or that of the appellate court does not  specifically refer to the question of interest on  solatium  or  in  cases  where  claim  had  not  been made and rejected either expressly or  impliedly  by  the  Reference  Court  or  the  appellate  court,  and  merely  interest  on  compensation is awarded, then it would be  open to the execution court to apply the ratio   of  Sunder  and  say  that  the  compensation  awarded includes solatium and in such an  event  interest  on  the  amount  could  be  directed  to  be  deposited  in  execution.   Otherwise,  not.  We  also  clarify  that  such  interest on solatium can be claimed only in   pending  executions  and  not  in  closed  executions  and  the  execution  court  will  be  entitled to permit its  recovery from the date   of the judgment in Sunder (19-9- 2001) and  not for any prior period. We also clarify that   this  will  not  entail  any  reappropriation  or   fresh  appropriation  by  the  decree-holder.   This  we  have  indicated  by  way  of   clarification  also  in  exercise  of  our  power  under  Articles  141  and  142  of  the   Constitution  of  India  with  a  view to  avoid  multiplicity of litigation on this question."  

I 18

21.Subsequent  to  the  aforesaid  Constitutional  Bench  

decision of this Court, a Division Bench of this Court in  

Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner & Anr  

v.  Shivappa  Mallappa  Jigalur  &  Ors [supra]  after  

referring to the aforesaid decisions held and observed as  

follows in paragraph 13:-

“13. The decision in Gurpreet Singh, thus,  actually  enlarged  the  scope  of  execution  proceeding, in a certain way, on the basis of  the decision in Sunder. Coming now to the  passage specially relied upon by Mr. Hegde,  we do not have the slightest doubt that the  reference  to  "closed  executions"  does  not  mean cases in which the main proceeding  arising  from  the  landowner's  claim  for  enhanced  compensation  remains  pending  before  the  civil  court  or  at  the  appellate  stage.  It  may  sometimes  happen,  as  illustrated by this case that the award of the  Collector or the decree of the civil  court is  put to execution and payments are made in  terms of the award or the decree of the civil  court  and in that  sense  the  award or  the  decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal  against the award or the decree of the civil  court may still remain pending either before  the High Court or even before this Court. In  appeal, the superior court may enhance the  compensation  which  would  lead  to  enhancement of solatium and consequently  the  interest  on  the  additional  amounts  of  compensation and solatium.            In such  a situation, the landowner/claimant would  be bound to go back to the execution court  for realisation of the additional amounts in  terms of the modified decree. In such cases,  

I 19

the  execution  proceedings  cannot  be  deemed to be closed and neither was it the  intent of the observations in paragraph 54  of the decision in Gurpreet Singh.

22.However,  in  the  present  appeals,  the  impugned  

judgment and order against which these appeals are filed  

would reveal that the prayer for payment of interest on  

solatium  was  specifically  made  and  the  same  was  

rejected by the High Court. But in so far as the market  

value of the land is concerned, the High Court passed an  

order  of  enhancement  and  the  said  enhanced  amount  

came to be deposited by the Respondents after passing of  

the order in the case of Sunder [supra]. Being aggrieved  

by  the  said  judgment  and  order  of  fixation  of  market  

value  of  the  land  as  also  against  the  rejection  of  the  

prayer for payment of interest on solatium, these appeals  

have been filed.  Three of such appeals were barred by  

limitation but by express orders passed by this  Court,  

the delay in filing the said three appeals was condoned.  

We have not been shown any conclusive proof to come to  

the decision that the execution cases were closed.  On  

the other hand, the enhanced amount was deposited by  

the Respondent after the date of decision in Sunder and  

I 20

since the present appeals were entertained by this court,  

and  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  present  

appeals,  we  would  hold  that  the  appellants  herein  be  

provided with the benefit of the decision laid down by the  

Constitutional Bench as stated, particularly in paragraph  

54 of  Gurpreet Singh case [supra]. We have passed the  

order  for  payment  of  interest  on solatium also,  taking  

into consideration the view of the High Court for rejection  

of the claim for interest on solatium holding that no such  

interest  is  payable  in  terms  of  the  decision  of  the  

Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.  

Maharau Srawan Hatkar,  reported in Judgment Today  

1995 (2) S.C. 583.  Subsequent to the aforesaid decision  

this  Court  has rendered the  verdict  in  Sunder  (supra)  

and the Constitution Bench decision in Gurpreet Singh  

(supra), carving out an exception by making the claimant  

entitled to interest on solatium on certain conditions.   

23. Considering the factors in toto, and in the peculiar facts  

and circumstances of the present appeals, we direct for the  

payment of interest on solatium to the appellants herein in  

terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurpreet  

I 21

Singh [supra] i.e., from the date of the Judgment in Sunder  

[supra] from September 19, 2001 to the date of deposit of the  

entire amount in the execution court.  

24. Accordingly, appeals stand disposed of in terms of the  

discussion and observations made hereinabove, but we leave  

the parties to bear their own costs.

............................................J        [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

............................................J        [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, November 19, 2010.

I 22