1 R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014

:PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP.D.WAINGANKAR

M.F.A. No. 4361 of 2011 C/W. M.F.A. No. 4348 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4363 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4351 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4356 of 2011, M.F.A.No. 4353 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4358 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4357 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4362 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4354 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4352 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4350 of 2011 AND M.F.A. No. 4360 of 2011 (LAC)

M.F.A. No. 4361 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Rev. Fr. Ronald D. Souza, (Parish Priest) Representing Church of Mary Help of Christians (Mariapura) Adyapady Post-574 142, 2

Mangalore Taluk. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.9/1998 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina , partly allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4348 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Smt. Isabella Sequeira @ Joblo Sequeira, Widow of Inthru D S’ouza, Residing near Adyapady Church, Malavoor Village, P.O. Adyapady, , (since dead by LRs.,)

1. Henry D’Souza, S/o. Late Inthru Bonaventure D’Souza, And late Isabella Sequeira, (Joblo Sequeira) Residing near Adyapady Church, 3

Malavoor Village, P.O. Adyapady, Mangalore Taluk-1.

2. Charles B.D’Souza, Aged about 71 years, Tanji Nagar, Room No.108, Teen Dongri, Goregaon(west), Bombay-1.

3. Louis B. D’Souza, Aged about 67 years, M.H.B. Colony, Block No.66/2859, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai-1.

4. Lawrence B. D’Souza, Aged about 63 years, Sector 10, Condomonium 5, Kopper Kairne, New Bombay-1.

5. Cicil Mascarenhas, Aged about 73 years, Karodi House, Kenjar Post, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore-1.

6. Monty D’Souza, Aged about 69 years, Pejavar Post, Near Pejavar Church, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore-1.

7. Florine D’Souza, Aged about 64 years, Kandavar Village & Post, 4

Via Kaikamba, Mangalore-1.

8. Rosy D’Souza, Aged about 69 years, Pejavar Post, Near Pejavar Church, Mangalore Taluk-1. …Respondents (By Sri. K.Rama Bhat, Advocate for R1; R2, R5 to R8 are served and unrepresented) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.12/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, , partly allowing the Reference petition for seeking enhancing the compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4363 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

G. Gopalakrishna Puthuraya, Krambar, Malavoor Village, P.O.Baajpe, Mangalore Taluk. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

5

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.23/1998 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, partly allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4351 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Elias Tauro, S/o. Louis Tauro, R/at. “Maldigunda House”, Adyapadi Village, P.O. Adyapadi, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. …Respondent

(By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.14/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, partly allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

6

M.F.A. No. 4356 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Sanjeeva Belchada, S/o. Sompp Belchada, Karambar, Bajpe Post-574 142, Mangalore. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.77/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4353 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

7

And:

1. Smt. Anjalinia Pinto (Since dead) (By Lrs.) Widow of Salvadore Pinto, Near Adyapady, Church, Malavoor Village & P.O. Adyapady, Mangalore Taluk, D.K.,

2. Mrs. Celine D’Souza, W/o. Lawrence D’ Souza, ‘Star Villa’ Adyapady Village, Via: Bajpe, Mangalore Taluk, D.K.,

3. Mr. Paul M. Pinto, Aged about 69 years, S/o. Late Salvadore Pinto, Kinjal Extensions Pvt., Ltd., Shantha Industrial Estate, L.E., Highway, Kashmira, Thane District-401 104.

4. Airport Authority of , Having its office in Mangalore, At Bajpe, Mangalore. …Respondents (By Sri. M. Vijay Krishna Bhat, Advocate for R1, R2 & R4; R3 Served and unrepresented) ****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.38/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4358 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer 8

& Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

1. Miss Margaret Mathias, D/o. Bejmi Mathias, Adult.

2. Mrs. Lilly Sequeira, W/o. Stephen Sequeira, Adult,

Both R/at. No.102 (Dlympiast), Leo Road, Bandra, Mumbai.

Both rep. by their GPA Holder and Grandson Mr. Gration Wilfred Mathias, S/o. Joseph Mathias, Aged 20 years, Doojakodi House, Karambar Malavoor Village, Bajpe, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., …Respondents (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.94/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, partly allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4357 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer 9

& Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Rev. Fr. Ronald D. Souza, (Parish Priest) Mary Help of Christians Church, Adyapady Village, Mangalore Taluk. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.84/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, partly allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4362 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Hilda Monteiro, W/o. Late Rosario Monterio, Malavoor Padavu, 10

Kenjar Post, Via Bajpe, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., …Respondent (Respondent served and unrepresented) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.12/1998 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4354 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Rev. Fr. Ronald D. Souza, (Parish Priest) Mary Help of Christians Church, Adyapady Village, Mangalore Taluk. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.63/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation. 11

M.F.A. No. 4352 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Miss Jethrooj Pereira, D/o. Ladru Pereria, Residing in Kolambe Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. …Respondent (Respondent service awaited) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.18/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4350 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP) 12

And:

Elias Tauro, S/o. Louis Tauro, Maldhigundau, Adyapady Village & Post, Mangalore. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.8/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation.

M.F.A. No. 4360 of 2011

Between:

The Land Acquisition Officer & Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub Division, Mangalore-1. ….Appellant

(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP)

And:

Elias Tauro, S/o. Louis Tauro, Maldhigundau, Adyapady Village & Post, Mangalore. …Respondent (By Sri. S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Advocate) *****

13

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 54(1) of the LA Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC No.96/1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, allowing the Reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation.

These Appeals coming on for Orders this day, N.K. PATIL J., delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

Though these matters are posted today for orders,

with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both

the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

2. These appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer &

Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division,

Mangalore, are directed against the impugned common

judgment and award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC

Nos.9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 77/1997,

38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998, 63/1997, 18/1997,

8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively by the II Additional Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada .

3. The Reference Court, by its common judgment

and award, has fixed the market value in respect of

the lands in question at `8,000/- per cent with all 14

statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A.

Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has presented these appeals, on the ground that, the market value fixed by the Reference

Court at `8,000/- per cent is on higher side and is liable to be reduced by modifying the same.

4. Lands bearing Sy.No.76/3B, measuring 2 acres 08 cents; Sy.No.74/2 measuring 10 acres 87 cents;

Sy.Nos.135/7A3 measuring 1 acre 20 cents & 135/7B measuring 35 cents and in all, measuring 1 acre 55 cents;

Sy.Nos.191/2A1B, 2A2B,1B2,1A2 and 114/1B2 in all measuring 1 acre 76 cents; Sy.No. 74/2 measuring 10 acres 87 cents; Sy.Nos. 135/5, 135/4, 129/B, 135/2B,

23/18 in all measuring 6 acres 64 cents; Sy.No.76/3A measuring 1 acre 39 cents; Sy.No. 76/3F measuring 2 acres

50 cents; Sy.No.19/1A1A1 measuring 1 acre 25 cents;

Sy.No.76/3F measuring 2 acres 50 cents; Sy.No. 114/1B2 measuring 63 cents and Sy.No.191/1A2 measuring 1 acre

13 cents, in all, 1 acre 76 cents; Sy.No.114/1B2 measuring

91 cents and Sy.No. 191/1B2 measuring 2 acres 40 cents, 15

situated at Malavoor, Adyapady and Kolambe villages, belonging to the claimants have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second

Run way and Terminal Complex/tower for Mangalore

Airport vide Preliminary notification dated 1.1.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act, followed by Final Notification issued under Section 6(1) of L.A.Act. Thereafter, notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued inviting objections and claim from the notified kathedars and then the Land

Acquisition Officer has passed the award, fixing the market value at `250/- to `450/- per cent. Not being satisfied with

the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the

claimants have fil ed applications under Section 18(1) of

L.A. Act seeking enhancement and requesting the Land

Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the

jurisdictional Reference Court. Accordingly, the

applications have been referred to II Additional Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, D.K and registered as

LAC Nos. 9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 16

77/1997, 38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998,

63/1997, 18/1997, 8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively.

5. The said matters had come up for consideration before the Reference Court, which in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, taking into consideration the purpose for whic h the lands have been notified and acquired, following the judgment passed by the Apex

Court and this Court and placing reliance on Ex.P5 wherein, the price of each cent of land is sold at

`10,000/-, after deducting 20% towards development charges, has fixed the market value at `8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under

Section 23 of L.A. Act and accordingly, allowed the said petitions. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and award, the appellant has presented these appeals, on the ground that, the Reference Court has erred in not following the judgment and award passed in LAC No.16/1997 and erred in relying on 17

Ex.P5-copy of sale deed, wherein, the price of each cent of land is sold at `10,000/- and in deducting 20% towards development charges instead of 1/3 rd as held by the Apex Court in hosts of judgment.

6. The submission of the learned Government

Pleader appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Reference Court has committed an error, much less material irregularity in fixing the market value at

`8,000/- per cent relying on Ex.P5- certified copy of the sale deed in respect of the small extent of land situated at Malavoor village, after deducting 20% towards development charges out of `10,000/- per cent, without considering the judgment and award passed by the same Court in LAC No.116/1997, wherein, the market value was fixed at `5,600/- per cent in respect of the lands which have been notified and acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation to the families displaced by the acquisition of land for the purpose of second run way to Mangalore. To substantiate her submission, 18

she submitted placing reliance on paragraphs 19 and

20 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and another etc. Vs. Special

Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4591 that, in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has deducted 1/3 rd towards development costs. Further, she submitted placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court dated 1/3/2014 passed in M.F.A.No.29/2013

(Executive Engineer Vs. S.N.Jayaram) and connected matter , that, 1/3 rd has to be deducted towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court by modifying the impugned common judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants, inter-alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and 19

after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and particularly, Ex.P5, copy of the sale deed in respect of the land belonging to the same village. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the lands in question have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of second runway and terminal for Mangalore airport and the entire lands have been utilized for the purpose for which they have been notified and acquired. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly accepted the submission made by learned counsel appearing for claimants and placing reliance on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner and

Land Acquisition Officer, Karwar Vs. Smt. Kamala

Bail, Kom., Laxman Metri) reported in 1997 (3)

K.L.J. 673 (FB) and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file and also taking into consideration the nature of soil, its potentiality and geographical area and after 20

assigning valid reasons, has justified in determining the market value at `10,000/- per cent and after deducting

20% towards development charges, has fixed the market value at `8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the L.A. Act and therefore, it does not call for interferences.

8. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it emerges that, large extent of lands situated at Malavoor, Adyapady and

Kolambe villages, including the lands belonging to the claimants have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second

Runway and terminal complex for Mangalore airport, following due procedures as envisaged under relevant provisions of L.A. Act. Thereafter, Land Acquisition officer has passed the award fixing the market value at the rate of `250 to `450 per cent. Not being satisfied 21

with the same, claimants have filed their applications under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act, for enhancement of compensation with a request to refer the same to the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, those applications were referred to the Reference Court. Thereafter, the

Reference Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has allowed the said petitions and fixed the market value at

`8,000/- per cent after deducting 20% out of `10,000/- towards development charges with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act.

9. It is the specific case of the learned

Government Pleader appearing for appellant that,

Reference Court has erred in not assigning valid reasons in para-17 of its judgment for deducting 20% towards development charges out of `10,000/- per cent determined as market value of the lands in question placing reliance on Ex.P5, wherein a small extent of 22

land has been sold at `10,000/- per cent. The Reference

Court ought to have taken the average of Exs.P2 to

P5- registered sale deeds and determined the market value and after deducting 1/3 rd towards development charges instead of 20%, ought to have fixed the market value in respect of the lands in question. The learned

Government Pleader appearing for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and another etc. Vs. Special

Tahsildar (Land Acquisiti8on) and another etc. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4591 , wherein, the Apex

Court placing reliance on the judgment in

A.P.Housing Board Vs. K.Manohar Reddy reported in

(2010) 12 SCC 707 and in the case of Subh Ram Vs.

State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444 as referred in para-19, has held as under:

The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to 23

be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.,) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost.”

Further, the Apex Court has held in para-21 of its judgment as under:

21. The first error committed by the High Court relates to deduction of 40% towards development charges. While doing so, the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Board and other establishments as also the fact that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they will have to start the development work from scratch. Therefore, the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3 rd deduction towards development cost.”

24

In the instant case, the lands in question have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second Run way and terminal for Mangalore airport and as the lands are situated in hilly area and they are suitable for construction of Second Run way having regard to less traffic and development in around the said area. It is significant to note that, the lands in question have been utilized for the purpose for which they have been acquired and the amount spent towards its development would be on higher side. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration and having regard to the nature of soil, potentiality and its geographical area and in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex

Court and this Court, we can safely deduct 30% towards development charges out of `10,000/- determined by the Reference Court as market value instead of 20% as deducted by it, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Valliyammal’s case to meet 25

the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the appellant as well as the claimants.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, specifically taking into consideration the reasoning given by the

Reference Court in Paras 16,17 and 18 of its judgment,

we hold that, 30% should be deducted towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court to meet the ends of justice.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in part.

The impugned common judgment and award dated

30/03/2010 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge

& CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, so far as it relates to

LAC Nos.9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 77/1997,

38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998, 63/1997, 18/1997,

8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively, is hereby modified, by deducting 30% towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court and re-fixing the market 26

value at `7,000/- per cent instead of `8,000/- per cent,

with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of

L.A. Act and this will not be a precedent to other cases.

In view of disposal of main matters on merits, I.A.No.

3/2011 in M.F.A. No. 4361 of 2011, I.A.No.2/2011 in

M.F.A. No. 4348 of 2011, I.A.No.3/2011 in M.F.A. No. 4363 of 2011,M.F.A. No. 4351 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4356 of 2011,

M.F.A.No. 4353 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4358 of 2011, M.F.A.

No. 4357 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4362 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4354 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4352 of 2011, and M.F.A. No. 4360 of

2011 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off as having become infructuous.

With the above observations, the appeals filed by the appellant are disposed of.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE tsn*