REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6240-6243 OF 2001   

Sagunthala (Dead) through Lrs.       ..Appellant(s)

Versus  

Special Tehsildar (L.A.) & Ors.   ..Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 6244-6248 of 2001 and

Civil Appeal No. 495-504 of 2002

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1.These appeals have been filed challenging the  

judgment and order dated 23.1.01 of Madras High  

Court.

2.Facts relevant to the present dispute are that  

an extent of 196 acres of lands were acquired  

1

for  the  purpose  of  expansion  of  Tamil  Nadu  

Magnesite  Limited,  a  State  owned  company.  

Various notifications under Section 4 (1) of  

the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Act”) were issued in the  

month of February, March and May 1984.  

3.In connection with giving compensation for that  

acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer had  

fixed  the  market  value  at  the  rate  of  

Rs.18,000/- per acre for irrigated dry land and  

Rs.15,000/- per acre for unirrigated dry land  

in Award Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 of 1986.  

4.As  the  claimants  felt  aggrieved  by  and  

dissatisfied with the awards, they asked for  

reference  under  Section  18  of  the  Act.  The  

Reference Court, i.e. the Court of Subordinate  

Judge Salem, after considering the documentary  

and  oral  evidence,  treated  the  lands  as  

potential  house  sites  and  fixed  the  market  

value at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre.  

2

5.The case as put forward by the claimants before  

the Reference Court and this Court was that the  

compensation was not fixed by the Collector on  

a  proper  basis  and  the  acquired  land  is  

potential house site and the valuation ought to  

have been done on that basis. It was also their  

submission  that  relevant  sale  deeds  were  

ignored while fixing up the value and the data  

sale  deed  selected  by  the  Officer  was  

absolutely  unreliable.  It  was  urged  that  in  

several  cases,  the  Officer  did  not  award  

compensation for well, cement channel and for  

the super structures and trees.  While in some  

of the cases the Land Acquisition Officer had  

not awarded interest for the lands which are  

taken  possession  in  advance  from  the  land  

owners. Neither was the compensation paid for  

the change of residence and place of avocation.  

6.Per contra, the respondents urged that the Land  

Acquisition Officer had fixed the value after  

verifying the records of nearby land owners on  

such transactions and after verifying all the  

3

aspects.  It  was  further  submitted  that  the  

value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is  

correct and the value claimed by the claimants  

is very high and there was no objection by the  

owners  for  those  lands  at  the  time  of  

acquisition.  So  there  is  no  necessity  for  

enhancement of compensation. It was urged that  

the documents relied upon by the claimants are  

in  no  way  relevant  for  fixing  the  higher  

values.

7.The  Reference  Court  taking  into  account  the  

admission of R.W. 2 that there are number of  

buildings on the land acquired and the plots of  

land which are occupied by the building are to  

be  treated  as  house  sites,  held  that  the  

classification  of  lands  into  irrigated  and  

unirrigated lands made by the Land Acquisition  

Officer  was  unreasonable  and  erroneous.  The  

Reference Court held that the Officer should  

have taken into consideration the proximity of  

lands  acquired  to  the  other  residential  

4

colonies,  the  factories  and  that  the  lands  

itself was used as housing plots.   

8.The Reference Court fixed Rs. 1,75,000/- per  

acre as the amount taking note of the fact that  

although  the  lands  acquired  are  situated  in  

different survey numbers but they are adjacent  

to each other and are acquired as one block for  

the same purpose.  

9.The  High  Court  vide  its  judgment  dated  

23.01.2001 passed in Appeal Suit Nos. 134 to  

143 of 1997 and C.M.P No. 16081 of 2000 in  

Cross  Objection Sr.  No. 14276  of 1997  while  

setting aside the order of Reference Court took  

into consideration the fact that plots of lands  

acquired were agricultural lands initially and  

continued to be so till they were acquired. The  

High  Court  relied  on  the  fact  that  the  

claimants  in  their  representation  before  the  

Land Acquisition Officer have claimed different  

amounts  and  majority  of  them  claimed  

compensation only at the rate of Rs. One Lakh  

per  acre.  The  High  Court  held  that  the  5

Reference Court had given no reason at all for  

awarding compensation higher than what had been  

claimed. The High Court after taking into note  

the existence of 2 housing colonies held that  

it could not be concluded that the vast extent  

of land acquired in the case would also become  

a housing colony on its own and was of the view  

that  there  was  no  sufficient  material  to  

establish that the lands in dispute could be  

converted into a housing site in near future.

10.It  was  held  that  lands  in  question  were  

valuable agricultural lands where horticulture  

and  other  crops  were  raised  and  they  were  

garden  lands,  sufficiently  irrigated.  The  

market value was fixed at Rs.75,000/- per acre  

uniformly  for all  the lands  involved in  the  

above  acquisition.  The  award  of  interest  on  

solatium and on additional grounds was held to  

be contrary to the principles laid down by the  

Apex Court.

6

11.The  claimant(s)/appellant(s)  being  aggrieved  

by  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  High  Court  

approached this Court.

12.The main bone of contention on behalf of the  

appellant  is  regarding  the  classification  of  

lands and their value fixed by the High Court.  

It  was  argued  before  this  Court  that  the  

acquired lands are potential house sites and  

that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  

ignoring  the  documentary  evidence  in  that  

regard.

13. This Court finds that the Reference Court was  

right  in  holding  that  while  determining  the  

value of the property acquired one has to see  

whether  the  land  has  got  the  building  

potentiality  to  be  used  for  the  building  

purposes in the immediate or in near future. In  

P.  Ram Reddy  and others v.  Land  Acquisition  Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,  Hyderabad  and others (1995) 2  SCC 305,  this  Court held that:  

7

“Market value of land acquired under the  LA Act is the main component of the amount  of  compensation  awardable  for  such  land  under  Section  23(1)  of  the  LA  Act.  The  market value of such land must relate to  the last of the dates of publication of  notification or giving of public notice of  substance  of  such  notification  according  to Section 4(1) of the LA Act.”

This Court went on to further hold that:-

“Such  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  cannot only be its value with reference to  the actual use to which it was put on the  relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1)  of the LA Act, but ought to be its value  with reference to the better use to which  it is reasonably capable of being put in  the immediate or near future. Possibility  of the acquired land put to certain use on  the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of  the  LA  Act,  of  becoming  available  for  better  use  in  the  immediate  or  near  future, is regarded as its potentiality.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  market  value of the acquired land when has to be  determined  with  reference  to  the  date  envisaged  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  LA  Act, the same has to be done not merely  with reference to the use to which it was  put  on  such  date,  but  also  on  the  possibility  of  it  becoming  available  in  the  immediate  or  near  future  for  better  use, i.e., on its potentiality……”  

(See para 8)

14.The High Court, however, has taken note of the  

deposition  of  C.W.  1  who  has  admitted  that  

excepting the plots of land under acquisition,  

8

all  other  lands  are  agriculture  lands.  The  

aforesaid witness also admitted that his land  

under acquisition was agriculture land at the  

time of notification. C.W.6 has also admitted  

that  initially  all  the  acquired  lands  were  

agriculture lands. But High Court ignored other  

materials on record and fell into an error in  

concluding  that  the  acquired  lands  were  

agriculture lands and erroneously reversed the  

conclusions arrived by the Reference Court.

15. The  High  Court  relied  on  the  case  of  Land  Acquisition Officer, ELURU and others v. Jasti  Rohini (Smt.) and another [(1995) 1 SCC 717],  The   Collector, Raigarh   v. Dr.   Harisingh Thakur    and  another [AIR  1979 SC  472] and  Raghubans  Narain Singh v.  The Uttar Pradesh    Government,    through Collector of Bijnor, [AIR 1967 SC 465],  wherein  this court  has held  that the  market  

value, on the basis of which compensation is  

payable under Section 23 of the Act, means the  

price that a willing purchaser would pay to a  

willing seller for a property having due regard  9

to its existing condition with all its existing  

advantages and its potential possibilities when  

laid  out  in  its  most  advantageous  manner,  

excluding any advantages due to the carrying  

out of the scheme for which the property is  

compulsorily acquired.  

16.We, however, feel that the view taken by the  

learned High Court is not tenable. In our view  

the  learned  Reference  Court  has  rightly  

appreciated the evidence in this regard. While  

examining the evidence of C.W. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6,  

8 to 14, 17 to 19 and 21 it concluded that they  

have categorically stated that the lands were  

near  the  residential  housing  colonies  and  

abutting  the  Itteri  road  which  connects  the  

Tanmag road and are situated abutting the road  

from Thekkampatti village. According to C.W 4  

and 6 Gandhi Nagar Colony is at a distance of  

100 feet.   

17.It will be worthwhile to refer to Section 23  

of the Act. Section 23 reads as under: 10

“23.  Matters  to  be  considered  on  determining compensation:-  (1)  In  determining  the  amount  of  compensation  to  be  awarded  for  land  acquired under this Act, the Court shall  take into consideration-  First, the market- value of the land at  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  [notification  under  section  4,  sub-  section (1)];  Secondly,  the  damage  sustained  by  the  person interested, by reason of the taking  of any standing crops trees which may be  on the land at the time of the Collector’s  taking possession thereof;  thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by  the person interested, at the time of the  Collector's taking possession of the land,  by reason of serving such land from his  other land;  fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by  the person interested, at the time of the  Collector'  s  taking  possession  of  the  land,  by  reason  of  the  acquisition  injuriously affecting his other property,  movable or immovable, in any other manner,  or his earnings;  fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition  of the land by the Collector, the person  interested  is  compelled  to  change  his  residence  or  place  of  business,  the  reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to  such change, and sixthly, the damage (if  any) bona fide resulting from diminution  of  the  profits  of  the  land  between  the  time of the publication of the declaration  under  section  6  and  the  time  of  the  Collector’s taking possession of the land.  1A) In addition to the market value of the  land, as above provided, the Court shall  in every case award an amount calculated  at the rate of twelve per centum per annum  on  such  market  value  for  the  period  commencing  on  and  from  the  date  of  the  

11

publication  of  the  notification  under  section 4, sub- section (1), in respect of  such land to the date of the award of the  Collector or the date of taking possession  of the land, whichever is earlier.  Explanation:  -  In  computing  the  period  referred  to  in  this  sub-  section,  any  period  or  periods  during  which  the  proceedings  for  the  acquisition  of  the  land were held up on account of any stay  or injunction by the order of any Court  shall be excluded.]  (2) In addition to the market value of the  land as above provided, the Court shall in  every  case  award  a  sum  of  [thirty  per  centum]  on  such  market  value,  in  consideration of the compulsory nature of  the acquisition.”

18. This Court in the case of  State of Orissa v.  Brij Lal Misra and others, [(1995) 5 SCC 203],  held that:

“Section  23(1)  of  the  Act  charges  determination  of  the  amount  of  compensation for the acquired land taking  into account firstly the market value of  the land at the date of the publication of  the notification under Section 4(1) of the  Act.  The  question,  therefore,  would  be  that what would be the market value of the  land. The market value prevailing on the  date  of  the  notification  including  potentiality  the  land  possessed  of  or  realisable potentiality existing as on the  date  of  the  notification  would  be  the  relevant  fact  for  consideration  to  determine market value.”

(See para 3)

12

19. Further  in  the  case  of  Viluben  Jhalejar  Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat,  (2005) 4 SCC 789, this Court illustrated some  

positive and negative factors that could have a  

bearing  on  the  market  value  of  land  under  

Section  23.  [See  para  20  pg.  797]  While  

upholding the aforesaid view it was held in the  

case of  Attar Singh and another v.  Union of  India  and  another,  (2009)  9  SCC  289, that  determination of market value of the land may  

also depend upon the facts and circumstances of  

each case.  

20.R.W.3  in  his  evidence  stated  that  about  50  

company  quarters  were  constructed  on  the  

acquired land and 6 or 7 factory buildings were  

there. The construction made for factory was  

within  40  acres  and  about  30  acres  were  

constructed  for  residential  quarters.  He  

admitted  that  there  are  houses  of  

agriculturists in the acquired land. He also  

admitted  that  the  acquired  land  was  on  the  

northern side of the road from Thekkampatti and  13

Anna  Nagar Colony  was just  interior to  that  

being at a distance of 1 K.M. from interior to  

the  road.  He  also  said  that  there  may  be  

terraced buildings on the acquired land.  

21.R.W. 2 in his evidence stated that there are  

about 50-60 houses at Anna Nagar. He also said  

that  it  was  correct  to  say  that  there  were  

lands on both sides of the acquired land which  

belong  to  the  agriculturists.  He  also  

categorically admitted that land was acquired  

to build quarters for the labourers.  

22.R.W. 1 in his evidence admitted that the land  

adjacent  to  the  acquired  land  goes  from  

Thekkampatti  to  Sengaradu.  According  to  him  

Gandhi Nagar colony has 150 residential houses.  

23.As  such  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses  

supports conclusion that even at the time of  

the notification under Section 4 (1) there were  

buildings including the terraced buildings on  

the land acquired and they are all abutting the  14

main road and are at a distance of 1 K.M. from  

residential colonies like Anna Nagar and Gandhi  

Nagar.  

24.In the light of the above material facts this  

Court  feels  that  the  presence  of  number  of  

buildings on the lands acquired and the said  

lands being occupied by the buildings are to be  

treated as house sites. The basic purpose that  

has  been  traced  out  in  the  evidence  and  as  

admitted  by  the  RWs  that  the  lands  were  

acquired  for  the  purpose  of  putting  up  

residential quarters. As a portion of the land  

is  being  considered  as  house  site,  the  

adjoining lands have the potential of being put  

in  better  use  as  house  sites  in  the  near  

future.  

25.The other important factor is the proximity of  

the plots to two residential colonies i.e. Anna  

Nagar  and  Gandhi  Nagar.  As  it  has  come  on  

record that the Anna Nagar colony has about 50-

60 houses and Gandhi Nagar colony has about 150  15

houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to  

conclude that the present lands under dispute  

were near the residential colonies.  

26.It  should  also  be  taken  into  consideration  

that the disputed lands were situated near the  

factory premises and further were adjoining the  

main road which connects the Tanmag road. As  

such the aforesaid lands are potential house  

sites.  

27.In the judgment under appeal, the High Court  

took into consideration the fact that in the  

representation  before  the  LAO,  the  claimants  

have  claimed  different  amounts  ranging  from  

Rs.80,000/- to Rs. Two Lakhs and the majority  

of the claimants have claimed compensation only  

at the rate of Rs. One Lakh per acre. The High  

Court opined that no reason was given by the  

Reference Court for not accepting the claims of  

the  claimants  excepting  stating  that  the  

claimants have claimed lesser amount.  

16

28. It  is  settled  that  the  burden  of  

establishing/proving  the  market  value  of  the  

lands is always on the claimants. In  Periyar  and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala  [AIR 1990 SC 2192], this Court held that it is  

the duty of the Court to determine just and  

fair market value. It was further held that the  

claimants should produce necessary evidence on  

the value of land since the burden of proof is  

on them to establish the higher compensation  

claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in  

Periyar  and  Pareekanni  Rubbers  Ltd (Supra),  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Special  Deputy  Collector & Another  v.  Kurra Sambasiva Rao &  Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim  for enhancement of compensation the burden of  

proof  was  on  the  claimants  that  land  was  

capable  of  fetching  higher  compensation.  

Further  in  the  case  of  Kiran  Tandon v.  Allahabad  Development  Authority  and  another,  [(2004)  10  SCC  745],  it  was  held  that  the  

burden  of  proving  that  the  amount  of  

compensation  awarded  by  the  Collector  is  17

inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in  

the position of a plaintiff.

29. The  Court,  therefore,  has  to  treat  the  

reference as an original proceeding before it  

for determination of the market value afresh on  

the basis of the material produced before it.  

The claimant in the position of a plaintiff has  

to show that the price offered for his land in  

the award is inadequate on the basis of the  

materials  produced  in  Court.  The  material  

produced and proved by the other side will also  

be taken into account for this purpose. [See  

Para 10 page 754 of Kiran Tandon (supra)]

30.The  claimants  have  placed  reliance  on  sale  

deeds Ex. C 7, 8, 11 and 12 for the purpose of  

valuation  of  land.  The  Reference  Court  has  

considered that sale deeds as Ex. C 8 & 11 can  

be adopted as the basis for acquired lands. Ex.  

C8 is in respect of sale of house plots and is  

dated 11.03.83 which is nearly one year prior  

to the notification under Section 4 (1) and on  18

that basis the value of lands acquired under  

notification was fixed at Rs. 1,75,000/- per  

acre. It was held by the Reference Court that  

though  the  lands  were  acquired  in  different  

survey numbers but they were adjacent to each  

other and are acquired as one block for the  

same purpose.

31.The High Court, however, refused to rely on  

the  aforesaid  documents  as  the  High  Court  

opined that Ex. C8 was not admissible since the  

vendor or the vendee has not been examined. The  

High Court held that the sale of 1½ cents of  

land on the condition that they should be used  

for  house sites  appears to  be unusual.  With  

respect to the other document i.e. Ex. C11 the  

High Court considered the admission of CW 15  

that the land was not sold as house sites. It  

was  also  held  by  the  High  Court  that  the  

Reference  Court  was  wrong  in  not  deducting  

developmental charges from the value arrived.  

Basing  its conclusion  on the  facts that  the  

19

lands are agriculture lands the market value  

was fixed at Rs. 75,000/ per acre.       

32.In view of the admitted case that the lands  

acquired were potential house sites we do not  

agree with the views taken by the High Court  

while calculating the compensation.  R-13 and  

R-15  are  the  two  sale  deeds  containing  

particulars  of  the  sale  transactions  held  3  

years prior to the Section 4 (1) notification.  

The Reference Court after close perusal of the  

aforesaid  documents  held  that  the  same  

discloses  that  out  of  more  than  100  sales,  

number of sales in respect of the lands is sold  

as  house  sites  in  village  Thathaiyangarpatti  

village  and  the  adjacent  survey  numbers  in  

Thekkampatty village were also sold as house  

sites.

33. This Court in Avinash Dhavaji Naik v. State of  Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 171, has observed as  following:

20

“14. The potentiality of a land for the  purpose  of  development  as  also  for  building  purposes  would  depend  upon  a  large  number  of  factors.  For  the  said  purpose, the court may not only have to  bear  in  mind  the  purpose  for  which  the  lands were sought to be acquired but also  the subsequent events to some extent.

15. In a case of this nature the court may  proceed  on  the  presumption  that  such  a  vast tract of land viz. 96 villages were  sought to be acquired at the same time for  construction  of  New  Bombay.  We  are  not  unmindful of the fact that development in  the entire area was not possible at one  point  of  time.  Development  of  the  area  must have taken place in phases. We are  also not unmindful of the fact that the  price of the land may skyrocket depending  upon  the  development  as  also  future  potentiality.”

34. In  Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs., and others  v. State of Haryana and another, [(2008) 2 SCC  568], it  was  observed  that  the  expression  

“market value” has been the subject-matter of  

consideration by this Court in several cases.  

The market value is the price that a willing  

purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the  

property  having  due  regard  to  its  existing  

condition with all its existing advantages and  

its  potential  possibilities  when  let  out  in  

21

most  advantageous  manner  excluding  any  

advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for  

which the property is compulsorily acquired. In  

considering market value disinclination of the  

vendor to part with his land and the urgent  

necessity  of the  purchaser to  buy should  be  

disregarded. The guiding principle would be the  

conduct  of  hypothetical  willing  vendor  who  

would offer the land and that of a purchaser  

who, in normal human conduct, would be willing  

to  buy  as  a  prudent  man  in  normal  market  

conditions  but  not  of  an  anxious  purchaser  

dealing at arm’s length nor a fictitious sale  

brought about in quick succession or otherwise  

to inflate the market value. The determination  

of  market  value  is  the  prediction  of  an  

economic  event  viz.  a  price  outcome  of  

hypothetical  sale  expressed  in  terms  of  

probabilities. [See para 4]

35. It has been further held in Atma Singh (Supra)  that the market value of a property has to be  

determined having due regard to its existing  22

condition with all its existing advantages and  

its potential possibility when let out in its  

most advantageous manner. The question whether  

a land has potential value or not, is primarily  

one  of  facts  depending  upon  its  condition,  

situation, user to which it is put and whether  

it  is  reasonably  capable  of  being  put  and  

proximity  to  residential,  commercial  or  

industrial areas or institutions. The existing  

amenities like water, electricity, possibility  

of their further extension, whether near about  

town  is  developing  or  has  prospect  of  

development  have  to  be  taken  into  

consideration. [See para 5]

36.Following those principle laid down by this  

Court we hold that the High Court and the Land  

Acquisition  Officer  failed  to  take  into  

consideration the advantages and facilities, as  

discussed above, which were available in the  

acquired land. Moreover, the very purpose for  

which the land was being acquired is also a  

relevant factor. 23

37. The purpose for which the acquisition is being  

made is an important factor. This Court in the  

case of Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special  Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others  (2007) 9 SCC 447, held that both the Special  

Land  Acquisition  Officer,  the  District  Judge  

and the High Court have failed to notice that  

the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and  

that the purpose is a relevant factor to be  

taken  into  consideration  for  fixing  the  

compensation. [See para 29, page 459]

38.In the present case it has come on evidence  

from R.W. 2 that the lands were acquired to  

build quarters for the workers of the Company.  

39.As such we observe that the Reference Court  

rightly fixed the amount of compensation to be  

Rs. 1,75,000/- and we are inclined to uphold  

the said finding. As far as the question of  

grant  of  higher  compensation  than  what  is  

claimed by the claimants goes, the Reference  24

Court has observed, and in our opinion rightly  

so, that even before the representation before  

the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had  

stated  that  in  event  of  their  being  not  

satisfied  with  the  award,  they  reserve  the  

right  to  go  before  the  Civil  Court  for  

determination  of  just  and  reasonable  

compensation.

40. For the reasons above, the judgment of the High  

Court  is  set  aside  and  the  order  of  the  

Reference Court is upheld. So far as the claim  

of the appellant(s) for solatium, interest and  

other benefits under the statute is concerned,  

we direct that the same should be governed by  

the principles laid down in Sunder v. Union of  India,  (2001) 7  SCC 211, and the  principles  laid down in para 26, page 231 of the judgment  

be followed.  Para 26 of the judgment in Sunder  (supra) is set out below:  

“Once it is held as it inevitably must be  that  the  solatium  provided  for  under  Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral  and  statutory  part  of  the  compensation  

25

awarded  to  a  landowner,  then  from  the  plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it  would  be  evident  that  the  interest  is  payable  on  the  compensation  awarded  and  not  merely  on  the  market  value  of  the  land.  Indeed  the  language  of  Section  28  does  not  even  remotely  refer  to  market  value  alone  and  in  terms  talks  of  compensation  or  the  sum  equivalent  thereto.  The  interest  awardable  under  Section 28 therefore would include within  its ambit both the market value and the  statutory  solatium.  It  would  be  thus  evident that the provisions of Section 28  in terms warrant and authorise the grant  of interest on solatium as well.”

41.In  so  far  as  the  enhanced  compensation  as  

determined by this Court is concerned, the same  

should be distributed to the appellant(s) and  

concerned  parties  by  the  District  Judge  of  

Salem by cheques drawn in their names as early  

as  possible,  preferably  within  three  months  

from the date of service of this order on the  

District  Judge.  The  respondents  are  to  take  

steps accordingly.  

42.The appeals are thus allowed with no order as  

to costs.  

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

26

.......................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi February 24, 2010

27