Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 517/2011
RUPENDER SINGH & ORS Appellants
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI.
Mr. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA.
. 04.08.2011 CM 14409/20 11 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal)
This application is filed by the appellants praying inter a/ia for to condonation of delay of 436 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 436 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal.
Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent
No. 2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellants.
LAAPP. 51712011 2011:DHC:13641 I e~)
Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 436 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.
The application is disposed of.
ORDER
40 LAAPP. 517/2011 By way of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.148/2009 arising out of Award No.3/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act'). Counsel for the appellants submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being 4 LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-
LA.APP. 51712011 I) xxx ii) For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha, i.e. 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. xxx iv) xxx S v) xxx vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree."
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.
4. Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellants as granted to the appellants in the LAAPP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 436 days in filing the appeal as LA.APP. 51712011 Page3of[4] also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14409/2011 preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 04, 2011 rkb LAAPP. 51712011 S H H * IN tHE HIGH COURT O DELHI AT NEW DELHI ecisIO Date of Df[2] BthuJy,. ZOAk LAAPP784I20 0S JArJINA Appellant Through Mr L B Rai, AdvoCate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate 1'
VERSUS
• UdI & ORS RespOndeflts Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with S Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawafli and Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumter Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, • Ms.Shohna Takir and:Mr.ArUn • I irbaI, dvcate[5] for DDA • ••..,.•.• AND + LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005, LAAPP datd 121/2006, 43/2007 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 25 02 1997 & Award No 2/1999-2000, Village Mundka)
AND LAAPP 583/2009, LAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604/2009, LAPP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009 74/2010, LAAPP 7812010, LP APP 784/2005 & connected 1 • • •. • • • - •- •• H - - •:'-.-:-•. I ', LAAPP 79/2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2O1O,LAAPP 4, h2512010, LAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPR: 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA AP 238/2010, LA APP.239/2O1O, LAAPP 24312010, LAAPP 244/2010, LAAPP 245/2O10, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAP 251/2010, LAAPPI 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAARP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, L.A.APP 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2010 LAAPP 329/2010[1] LAAPP 330/2010, LAAP 1331/2010, LA APP 332/2010, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL. No 5524/2011, LA APP 335/2010, LA APP 367/2010, LAAPP LAAPP 36912010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL It 'No20099/2010, LAAP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPR 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2/J10, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011, L4APP 697/2010, LA APP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP • 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP 707/2010, 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LAAPP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 7473/2010, LA APP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LA APP 719/2010, LAAPP p766/2010, LAAPP 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LA'APP' 79812010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAI'P 818/2010, LA'APP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM i9PPL 955/2011, LA APP 832/2010, LA APP 833/2010 & CM APPL p6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAA'P 842/2010, LAAPP 871/2010, LAAPP 874/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP 876/2010, LAAPP 877/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP • 879/2010, t LA APP' 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM 1APPL6505/2011, LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP 883/2010, LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAAPP 88812010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010, LAAPP 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, LAAPP 894/2010 & CM No23353/2010, LAAPF 895/2010, LAAPP 896/2010, LA'APP 1897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, LAAPP [LA 44.784:'/200 ' 5 connected Page 26f 19 •;• • ••• • •. ' I, • 1. • •........t......,......,.. -..... j 1,907!2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAP 939/200, LAAPP 1o34/2 q 10 & CM APPIL. 3086/2011, LAAPP 1O4Ol21O & CM APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, 104B/20, LAAPP 10 kA AP 1O45/2O1J, LA APP 1O46/2O1O, LA APP 1048/20 10, LA PPP 104i92010, LA APP 1050/2010., LA APP 1'056/2010,' tLAAPP 1060f2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1t71/2010, I }IAAPP 125/2@11,LAAPP 126/2011,LAAPP258/2011.; j...)....:: •......:. •. ':: (ReIating /:o Notification u/s 4 ited 21 03 2003 & Award' No 3/2005!06, Village-Mundka)
AND LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009, LAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/2010, LAAPP 383/2010 1 LA APP 384/2010, LA APR 385/2010, LA APP • 473/2010, LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAAF99 690/2010, LAAPP. 692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 76312010, LA APP 872/2010, LA APP 873/2010, LA APP 885/2010, LA APP 887/2010, LA APP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LAAPP 898/2010 1 LAAPP 906/2010 & CM APL No4443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM AP9L 2329912010, LAAPP 1042/2010,,LAAPP 1047/2010 (ReIating to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & AWard' No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) AND. / LA A P P 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010, LA APP 10'19/2010, LA APP 1022/2010, LA APP 1023/2010, LA APP 10,44/210, LAAPP 1051/2010, LAAPP 1053/2010, LA.AP.O.1054/2010 & CM APPLt No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LA APP I I057/2010, LA APP 1058/2010, LA APP 1059/2010, LA APP }1068/2010, LA APP 1069/2010, LA APP 124/2011, APP 127/2011, LA APP 12812011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected ' ••:.•.....•.:..:.1.:.•,, H (ReIatinq to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 O62cO[5] &,ard No 13/2006-07, ViiIage-Mundka) • c. H • •: • •,.:.• '. t,. • AND c t + LA APP 40/2009 & Cross Objeci6ns, LA AP 426/~009, LAAPP 428/2009, 442/2009, LAAPP 611/209, LA'APP 2 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 t. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 24.09 2003 & Award No 3/2004-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND / + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM No5948)2011, LAAPP • 1030/2010, LA APP 1031/2010, LA APP 1033/2010 & CM No 6645/2011, LA APP 1062/2010, 1063/2010 & CMv. No6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LAAPP io66I2oio:LAAPP: • 1067/2010, LAAPP 11/2011, LA APP 122/2011 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 17 06 2005 & Award /No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) c0RAM HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
3 Whether the judgment should be rported in the Digest? PRADEEP ANDRAJOG, J (Oral) am deciding the abve captioned appeals and reltableGivIl miscellaneous apphcations which are by waj of cross objctions all of which have been listed heeinabove LA APP 784/2005 & connected, ç • 3 • •,... --.----------.-. --- -.---------.----.-.----. -..------..--. -.-.-.-.... 7-- 1 ' •:..... • • •...,.,H•..: I pursuant to a noification dated 25 2 1997 issued under SetIop. 4 of the'w- `Landl Acquisition Act as per award No 2/1999/2009: Agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Mundka were t further acquired pursuant to a notifi tion dated 21 3 2003. ' •: •: issued under Section 4 of the Land Ac%$Jtion Act as per award No 3/2005-06 as, also award No 1/200 Fuçther lands in the revenue estate cf the same village wet acquired ursuanttc notification dated 17 6 2005 issued indei Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8Agricultural lands in the reenue estate of village Bakkarwala were acquired pur5uant to a notification qated 24 9 2003 issued under Section I of theLand Acq,uisition Act as per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of S the same village were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 117'.[6] 2005 (the same notification under, which lands in viIlage Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/200607 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collectoç determined the fair market value of the cquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural land as notified by the Government of NOT Delhi
10 For clarity I may note tat pertaining to, the., notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands ri r,... the revenue estate of village Mundka wçre acquired, the learned tr Land Acquisition Collector determined thlejair market valuewith;reference to the minimum price for agricultural land notified with effect from 1 4 1997 @ Z10 lacs pe acre and since the date of Section 4 notification was anterior in point of time, discouhted 4 LA PP 784/2005 & connected.C.:., • C.....L..............C - ---i TV the price for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price w a s,!. adopted for category A lands For lands in cat ri ego Bc the Value was further discounted by 90,000/- per acre Pertaining to th notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2003, the Land, i.AcqUisition Collectorrelied upon the notification fixing the minimum price of agricultural land as of 1 4 2001 and gave no benefit of enhancement with reference to the fact thaf the fair, market value of the lands to be determined was as bf 21 3 2003 (and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the nqtification dpted 17.6.2005 which required fair market value of land to be • •:•S 1.,idetormined in the revenue estate of \illage akkarwala and viflage Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acqiisition Collector * 1• dtermined the s a me with reference to the notification fixing,: myiinium value of agricultural lands in Dlhi as of 1 4 2001and gatve no increase
11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair mrket value of the lands[3] by the Land Acquisition Collector, he land rs sought 'a reference under Section 18 of the Land "F Iuisition Act 1894 and on the referehce being made, vide various judgments and decrees, which are under challeng in the above captioned appeals, the Reference Court took tor*ective action, as per the view of the Reference Court, and nhanced the fair market value - • 1
12. In niri-chii •1.r+-r.i.-r. 4-L-. JII LU "Y LU ule IIULIIILd-LEQi] atea 5 2 1997vide v'hich agricultural lands iri ')illage Mundka were cquired, the Reference Court ad9pted the same hotificc)t'ioni as 'vas adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector under which the LA APP 784/2005 & connected H... S.........,....:... •: •. •1 r determined t:e sunflarrived at as of 21.3.2003 as also. 1annu.rn 24 9 2003 The two sums arnved at we e added and divided bt two to arrive at the mean figure as of. 21.3.20.03, which I note comes to U[5],92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions 1. note. the sum arrived at is Z15,92,215/-) For the date 24 9 2003 the price determined was U0,41,000I- per acre
15 Pertaining to the notificaqion dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in viIIag Bakkarwala and Ml4ndka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum pric!e for agricultiral tands notified by the Government of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 apd giving increasé @10% per annum determined the value and with frespect to the lands in village Mundka, on accont of locatiOnal 1advantage, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more and determined the fair market value as of 17 6 2005 in sum bf jZ21,37,017.75, per acre and for village, Bakkarwala th price Idetermined was 20,35,255I- per acre t16 In the afores,aid backdrop ofthe factual scenario in (which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Lanth Acquisition Collector as also that of the Referene Court, I delve pinto the arguments advanced before me during hearing today.
17 With reference to the evidence led in LAC S, No 384/2004 /amna Vs (JO! & Or ed s, it was urg by Sh L B Rai, jlearned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared 1for the fother appellants, that the learned Triai Judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1bigha LA APP 784/2005 & connected - - - - - - - -- - - - - ' and U,73,500/- for category B Iani, 2,35,85O for category A ) and and 1,9Oç15O7- for category B Iand, 4,O[2],8OI- for ategory A land and 3,24,85OI- for' catgory B lnd, I espectively
18 I may note here that in vahous land cquisiion eferencs, various parties have proved atnumber ofsale deed xecuted from time to time, but during aguments today before
X. J. ne, learhed counsel for the land ownershave only relied upon he sale deed Ex P-i
19 Per cdntra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the UOl would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot be dopted as the yardstick for the reason, o be a represenj:ative hole, the same 4 must; bear some adequate ample of the w pl prop9rtion tp the whole For example, learned counsel would árge that if it has to be determined Whether what percentage of, tones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a safe method' -11 to pick only on& grain, for if it hapens to be the grain of rice one; woujdlead to the,conclUsiOn that the.;bag is 100% full of.;i.ce. nd if tht onegrain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is fiiIl of stones At least a fistful should be lifted and then checked as a representative sample, is the example given The second reason on which larhed c'ob n s e F wdud attack the sale deed as not 1being • epresentative of the price is the reasop that people do come to r Inow about pending acquisition inasmuch'as before acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed Without a survey it Jvould be difficulç to issue even the notification Under Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 &corinected 4.. ••1.. •.t.;,... •:--- * 1 the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel would concede J ht the reasOns given by the learned Reference Court are not soànd, but would urge that the two tontentions advanced by }rnr-k should be onsidered by this Court as the reasons as tp why Ex}P[1] be not taken as t h e basis to deterine the fair market value of lands in village Mundka and Bakkarwala Thirdly, learned counsel would further,urge that the four sale deeds ExR-1 to referred to in the decisibn of the learned Reference Court pertainipg to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 3O[5] 1997, 4 6 1997 and.8.9.1997 relied upon by UOl vould hw the actial market value of the landi and thus learned • coi!insel would urge that the said four sale deeds should be onsidered, but hastens to add, that snce value reflected W therein is less than the minimum price r?otlfled by, the Governnent, the price fixation shouFd be with reference to the mirnmum price notified by, the Governmentwhich is nearest to the poiht of, time when the respectwe notifications were issued •. • •.:' •• • • under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 20 An independent and alternativ argument is also th'anced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests •..• • itself on a decision of. a Division Bench of this Court reported as • • 2006 (135YDLT 231 /aiSingh Vs 1)0/ 1 2,[1] The decision tnJSingh's case (stipra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair, market vaJe of land in village alkarwala which were acuired pursuant to a notification datd 15 10 1993 at 1,32,000I- per bigha Learned counsel wotld urgethat th said decision has attained finality inasmuch LAAP784/2OO5&connected Pagel2ofl[9] 'I • • •. • • •• •.. •..• • • •. • I I a - I -- - - -- -- Ias Petitions for Spial Leaeto[4] file before the Suprñi. c:ourt by either side.hve Learned.C.QUh.SL. the argyment forward by u[1] tiat by dopting the1fai..,....... market value of land i village kkwala as Af 15 10 1993 a, l,32,0O0I- per biga, the fi flarket value should b& ascertained by increpsing the pri progressively by 10% per annum to determine the markel, value of land in village JBJkkarwala as of 2'4 9 2003 as also 62005 Learned counsel would urge tliat in vie'w of the locional advntage of, villag,e Mundka, fair -iarket, value of land i village Mundka should be • determined as of 25 2 1997 3, 21 200.[3] and 17.6.2005, by giving 5% increase
22 With respect to the sale;,6e,ecl Ex P-, whereunder 1 bigha and 3 biswa of agricultu,ralj land wasp sold in Villag Mundka as of 5 8 1996, it would aurne importance that the sale is about.[7] months prior to the dte of the nctfication isyeç under Section'4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whih was issued on 25 2 1997 Itis a matter of common knowledge that preceding the publication of a notification un d er rSecti op 4 of the Land 4.. Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determining as to what Iands, comprised in which khasra • numbers and fields are required to be notified for the propose[1] acquisition and when this happens people in the area come know that very soon there is every likelihood that the lands V -I-:. •'.. U. •'..,...-, I, -,.. -.... •.. \ i-..... $: lans,tbe fair marlçet value assessedt is !2,4,4O[8] 75 per bigha ie p[1],97,162/- per acre la lLi d for Category B lands, l assess the fair market r value at 2O[1],117/- per bigha e 9,6,36i 60 p e r:,.. acre. •.:.. •....
29 The next notification wit[1] which I ara concernedj dated 21 32003 pertaining to Village Mund ln Ch,raniikal 's I as (supra), with reference to the decision in pratapSingh 'scase 4 t (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaining to a potification issued under Section 4 of tkie Land Acquisition Act on 6.2.21003, the f a i r,,market value assessed was T 4,03,425I- per. bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time gap of • am of the inion that pertaining, to just a little over 1 month, I op the notification 'dateq 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in.; 'illage Mundk should be 4,03,425I- i e 19,36,440I- per acre,' hich I hereby fix
30 I propose to deal with the notification dated:....•......,•. 24 9 2003, after' dealing with the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in Village MundkanØ Vi.11ge Bkkarwa'l,a.. j..... •...,.....
31 As noted hereinabove, in Chirani' Lal's case (supra), pertaining to the notification dated 6.[2] 2003, fair market value by e was 4,03,425I- per bigha and thus, increasing assesse m thé sarrie by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure comes to.[4] 4,98,589I- per bigha, which comes to 23,93,227 20 per cre "The same is held by me to be the fair market \jalue of lapd in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala as of 17 6 2005 I decree the same LA APP 78L/2OO[5] & connected •: '......, '.,,.. '. '.. ". s. T' '.• ':. H '.•.. H • •. •\'., - - •1 1
32 I am left with the notification dateti 24 2003 eraning to Village Bakkarwala and wtth rel3ërence to the fair hiarket value assessed in Chiranht Lal's case, I would require to apprecite the price by 10% per annum for a period of 201 dat's, he i figure comes to 4,25641I- per bigha e 20,43,076 80 per cre, which I determine to be the fair market aIue of I land. in IilIage Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 Accordingly, the appeals filed by th Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss 'the same The appealsfiled by the land owners and the crossobjecionS fiIed by the land owners stands decreed as under - • For the land falling in Category A land in Village fV j Mundka the fair market value is fixed at is 11,97,162/- per cre and 2,49,408 75 per big ha i e a for Category B lands, the fair market ialue is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha L e 19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 For the arid situated in Village Mundka the thir market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e, 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005.:.: iv For the la'nd situated in Village Bakkarwala,the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/ per bigha i et tLAA74/25&C0flCted Page 18of19, •.. l •: •.: • • • • •:.. •.. ••• • fr I •.,.., • • • - - - _... I • per:açre., a.soñ17.O[6].2OQ[5] 'Y.: • Forthe land situated in Village Bakkarwale fair 1 market value )S fixed at 4,25,641/- er fta ie 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 20b[3] Appellants and cross-objectors who have seeded Vwould also be entitled to solatium and inter as per Iry statute V and as clarified i n,the decision reppted as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sjnder vs UQI, the } compensation, paid originally and as enhajied by ' the Rference Court and finally on the sum enhanced S by the present judgment and decree 5 vu) The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed wotld also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applicatiohs stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) V JUDGE V • JULY 080 2011 rnçn LA APP 784/2005 & connected 4Page 19 Qf 19 I 4 t