P. CHINNANNA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

A                      P. CHINNANNA AND ORS.
                                 v.
                 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 8, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

          Constition of India, 1950 : Articles 136 and 226.

         Acquisition of land-Public purposes-Challenge of-Involves purely
C question of law-Laches or delay-Bar to entertainment of writ petition.

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

         Sections 4 and 6-Acquisition of land--Publication of notiftcation-
    Dec/aratiott-Not made within time specified-Held : liable to be quashed.
D          On 23.4.1976 Bhainsa Regulated Market Samiti requested the State
    Government to acquire 6 acres and 29 guntas of land for extension of its
    existing cotton Market Yard. On 6.7.1977 the State Government made an
    order under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing
    with enquiry under Section S(A) of the L.A. Act in view of the urgency. On
E   2L7.1977 the State Government published a notification and a declaration
    in respect of the said land under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) as was required
    under Section 16(4) of the L.A. Act. Thereafter, the District Collector took
    possession of the acquired land on 10.7.78. Thereupon, he gave possession
    of the said acquired land to the Bhainsa Regulated Market Samiti.'

F         The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court and sought the
    quashing of Section 4(1) Notification and 6(1) declaration in so far as they
    related to 1 acre 29 guntas of land. The High Court allowed the petitions
    on 23.8.1982, without quashing the Notification and declaration, and
    directed the respondents to hold enquiry under Section SA of the L.A. Act.
G
          Pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court, the respondents
    held an enquiry and concluded that the land concerned shall be acquired.
    Thereafter, on 29.11.1984 a declaration was made under Section 6(1) of the
    L.A. Act in respect of the said land.

H         The appellants then filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of
                                         426
                    P. CHINNANNA v. STATE OF AP."                       427

the High Court in which a fresh ground was raised. The fresh ground was        A
that Section 6(1) declaration, made on 24.11.1984, had not been made
within the period allowed by the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the L.A.
Act and was liable to be quashed. The High Court dismissed the appeals
rejecting the fresh ground. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the
appellants preferred the present appeals.
                                                                               B
      On behalf of the appellants it was contended that Section 6(1)
declaration was made on 24.11.1984 while notification under Section 4(1)
was published on 21. 7.1977, the declaration was void and liable to be
quashed as it was made beyond the period allowed by the first proviso to
Section 6(1); and that the High Court erred in not accepting the fresh         C
ground urged before it.

      Dismissing the appeals, this Court

      HELD : 1. The fresh ground urged In support of the present appeals
would merit acceptance, if the High Court's judgment dated 23.8.1982 had       D
the effect of restoring ownership of the said land to the appellants and
reviving the notification published on 21.7.1977 in respect of the said land
under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. [431-F, G]

      2. The previous acquisition of the said land of the appellants made      E
under Section 17 of the Act never stood affected. Section SA enquiry held
and subsequent declaration made were superfluous proceedings which
were inconsequential. Hence there is no n~ed to set aside the impugned
declaration since the earlier acquisition was complete and there was no
land available for acquisition by following the procedure under Sections
5-A, 6, 11 and 16 of the Act. [436-C, D, 435-G]                                F
      3. Though tile fresh ground of challenge in respect of Section 6(1)
declaration raised after seven years has been examined, the same has been
done solely to decide on the scope and applicability of the first proviso to
Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act. Such examination cannot be understood that . G
there is an obligation on the part of the Court to examine such fresh
ground after the lapse of time or laches, in a proceeding under Articles
226 or 136 of the Constitution. [436-F, G]

      4. The Court must be averse to entertain writ petitions challenging
acquisition of land for pnblic purposes where there is avoidable delay or      H
    428                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A laches since such acquisition if set aside, would involve not only enormous
    loss of public money but also would cause delay in carrying out projects
    meant for general public good. (436-H, 437-A]                                 ..
           5. When a fresh ground of attack to acquisition proceedings, even if
    it involves purely a question of law, its entertainment cannot be governed
B   by a principle different from that which governs entertainment of writ
    petitions before the High Court or proceedings arising therefrom under
    Article 136 of the Constitution. (437-A-B]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1503-04
C   of 1994.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High C~urt in W.A. Nos. 1389/91 & 608 of 1993.   ·

          D. Prakash Reddy and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Appellants.
D
         V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor Genreal and T.V.S. Narasim-
    hachari, Nikhil Nayyar a~d Ms. Promila Choudhary for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E         VENKATACHALA, J. These are the appeals in which special leave
    is granted under Article 136 of the Constitution. They are directed against
    the Common Judgment dated 3.8.1993 of a Division Bench of the High
    Court of Andhra Pradesh by which Writ Appeals Nos. 1389 of 1991 and
    608 of 1993 filed against the orders dated 10.3.1989 and 30.3.1989 of a
F   learned single Judge of the same Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 13439 of 1986
    and 7689 of 1989 respectively refusing to quash acquisition of certain land
    acquired for a public purpose under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {the
    L.A. Act), are dismissed.

        That on 23.4.1976 Bhainsa Regulated Market Samiti made a request
G to the State Government to acquire a compact ·block of 6 acres and 29
  guntas of land in survey Nos. 342/lA, 342/lB and 343 of Bhainsa village
  needed for extension of its existing Cotton Market Yard. That on 6.7.1977
  the State Government which regarded the said request to acquire land, to
  be a case involving urgency, invoked its power under sub-section (4) of
H Section 17 of the L.A. Act and made an order directing that the provisions
        P. CHINNANNA v. STATE OF AP. [VENKATACHALA.J.)                   429

 of Section 5A of the L.A. Act shall not apply. Further, that on 21. 7.1977, A
it got published in the State Gazette a nmification under Section 4(1) of
the L.A. Act and a declaration under Section 6(1) thereof, in respect of
the said land, as was required under sub-section ( 4) of Section 17 of the
L.A. Act. Thereafter the District Collector who got published the notice
mentioned in Section 9(1) of the L.A. Act took possession of the said B
acquired land on 10.7.1978, as provided for in sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the L.A. Act. Such taking of possession, made the said land, vest
absolutely in the State Go,t. free from all encumbrances as provided for
in the said sub-section, itself. Thereupon, the District Collector, gave
possession of the said acquired land to the Bhainsa Regulated Market
Samiti for whom it had been acquired. When the said 6 acres 29 guntas of C
land, had been so acquired and its possession was taken by the Collector
resulting in its vesting in the State, the appellants in the present appeals
filed W.P. Nos. 8433/76 and 3416/78 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
and sought the quashing of Section 4(1) Notification and 6(1) declaration
in so far they related to 1 acre 29 guntas of land, claimed to have been D
pur.chased by them in April, 1977. W.P. No. 3416/78 was disposed of by the
High Court by a judgment dated 23.8.1982 which read thus :

            "In this Writ Petition the acquisition of Ac.1- 29 cent guntas in
        S. No. 342/lA of Bhainsa village is challenged by the Writ
        Petitioners. This land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of      E
        extention of Agriculture Market Yard of that place. The gazette
        Notification was made under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
        Act on 21.1.1977 and in view of the alleged urgency, Sec. 5A
        enquiry has been dispensed with. That is to say, possession has
        been taken nearly a year after Sec. 4(1) notification was published.    F
        This circumstances in alone sufficient to show that the invoking of
        the emergency clauses to dispense with Sec. 5A enquiry is done
        mechanically.

           In these circumstances, the order made on 21.7.1977 dispensing
       with Sec. 5(A) enquiry is set aside and there will be a direction to     G
       the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, respondent No. 3 to give
       notice to the petitioners and hold Sec. 5A enquiry and the proceed-
       ings will commence from that point.

           The Writ Petition is allowed as mdicated above, but in the H
    430                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R ..

A            circumstances \vithout costs."

          Again Writ Petition No. 8433 of 78 was disposed of on the same date
    by the High Court by a judgment which reads thus :

          ''No orders are necessary."
B
          An enquirey under Section 5A of the L.A. Act appears to have been
    held pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
    3416 of 1978 and a decision taken by the State Govt., on the basis of the
    report of enquiry to the effect that the land concerned shall be acquired.
    Thereafter, on 29.11.1984, a declaration has come to be made under
c   Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of the said 1 acre 29 guntas of land
    and the notification of declaration is got published on the same date in the
    State Gazette.

          One of the appellants who had, as other appellants, purchased a
D building plot out of the said land respecting which the declaration dated
    29.11.1984 was made, filed Writ Petition No. 13439/86 in the High Court
                                                                                     r
    challenging the validity of the said declaration made on the basis of the
    opinion of the Govt., formed on consideration of Section 5A enquiry
    report. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the
    High Court on 10.3.1989. Despite the dismissal of that Writ Petition, all
E   other appellants appear to have joined and filed writ petition No. 7689 of
    1989 on the very grounds on which dismissed writ petition had been filed.
    But that writ petition also has come to be dismis~ed subsequently. Both the
    writ petitions had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge concerned
    finding that the grounds raised in support of those petitions lacked in merit.
F   Since the appellants who _were the petitioners in the said writ petitions had
    filed Writ Appeals Nos. 1389/91 and 608/93 against the orders dated
    10.3.1989 and 30.3.1989 by which their writ petitions were dismissed, a
    Division Bench of the High Court heard those appeals on 3.8.1993. At the
    hearing of the appeals, a fresh ground is said to have been raised in support
    of the appeals. The fresh ground was that Sec.6(1) declaration made on
G   29.11.1984 and under challenge, had not been made within the period
    allowed by the first proviso to Section 6(1) thereof, inserted into the L.A.
    Act by the L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984, and hence was liable to be
    quashed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment
    delivered on the same day, dismissed the appeals, rejecting, inter a/ia the
H   fresh ground urged in support of the appeals at the hearing thus :
',

             P.CHINNANNA v. STATEOFA.P.[VENKATACHAIA,J.]                   431

                 "The learried counsel for the appellants also submits that.in any A
             view of the matter, the declaration under section 6 published on
             November 24, 1984 is beyond three years. In fact, this plea has not
             been taken in the Writ Petitions. As already stated, when Writ
             Petition No. 3416 of 1978 was filed, stay of further proceedings
             was granted. Finally, the Writ Petition was allowed on August 23, B
             1982. The respondents must know about the said order and after
             receipt of _a copy of the Judgments they have conducted enquiry
             and also published the draft declaration. Under these circumstan-
             ces, it cannot be said that the declaration was published beyond
             the time allowed under law."
                                                                                  c
            The appellants in the said writ appeals, who are the appellants in the
     present appeals by special leave have questioned the correctness of the
     judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court made in the writ
     appeals. The grievance of the appeallants in the present appeals, as venti-
     lated before us by their learned counse~ is confined lo non-acceptence by · D
     the Division Bench of the High Court, the fresh ground argued before it
     against declaration made on 24.11.1984 under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act
     as that that was made beyond the time allowed under the first proviso to
     Section 6(1) inserted by the L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984. The ground
     urged in support of the present appeals by the learned counsel for the E
     appellants, to be precise, is that when Sec. 6(1) declaration .impugned by
     them was made on 24.11.1984 while notification under Section 4(1) con-
     cerned was published on 21.7.1977, the declaration had been made beyond
     the period envisaged in the proviso and hence it was void and liable to be
     quashed. We may say, at once, that the ground so urged in support of the
     present appeals would merit acceptance, if the judgment dated 23.8.1982 F
     of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3416 of 1978 had the effect of
     restoring ownership of 1 acre 29 guntas of land to the appellants and
     reviving section 4(1) notification which had been published on 21.7.1977 in
     respect of that land also, as is assumed on behalf of the appellants, for the
     reasons, which we shall presently, state.                                     G

           Section 6(1) of the LA. Act and the first proviso inserted under the
     L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984 on which reliance is placed in support of the
     ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants in support of their
     appeals reads :                                                            H
    432                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A                "...........when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
             considereing the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-sec-
             tion (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose,
             or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under
            .the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer
             duly authorized to certify its order, and different declarations may
B            be made from time to time in respect of diffeent parcels of any
             land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section
             (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or
             have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-sec-
             tion (2) :
c              Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land
            covered by a notification under Section 4, sub- section (1),-

            (i) Published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
            (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but
D           before .the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
           'Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the
            date of the publication of the notification; or

            (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
           '(Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year
E          .from the date of the publication of the notification:

               Provided ...........

            Explanation. 1 • In computing any of the periods referred to in the
            first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to
F           be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4
            sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded."

          As becomes clear from a reading of the said proviso, there is a
    prohibition imposed in the matter of making a declaration under Section
    6(1) in respect of any particlar land governed by the notification nnder
G   Section 4 sub-section (1), beyond the respective periods mentioned in
    clanses (i) and (ii) thereof. However, from the Explanation-! to the said
    proviso it becomes clear that either of the periods referred to in clanses
    (i) and (ii) of the proviso could be computed by excluding the period
    during whiels any actioner proceeding to .be taken in pursuance of the
H   notification issued under Section 4 sub-section (1), was stayed by an order
         P. CHINNANNA v. STATE OF AP. [VENKATACHALA, J.]                    433

of Court.                                                                          A

       When we come to the facts of the present case which had given rise
to Writ Petitions 3416n8 and 8433n8 in the High Court there was no order
made by Court which stayed the talcing of any action or proceeding
pursuant to Section 4( 1) notification concerned, in that Section 6(1) dee-        B
laration of the concerned land was made, possession of such land was taken
under Section 17(1) resulting in the vesting of the land in the Government
and possession of that land in turn had been handed over to the Bhainsa
Regulated Market Sarniti for whom the same had been acquired, even prior
to the filing of the Writ Petitions. In so far as clause (ii) of the proviso is
concerned, that cannot apply since the notification under Section 4 sub-           C
section (1) concerned published on 21.7.1977 could not be regarded as that
made after coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984. Then, as is assumed on behalf of the appellants in the present
appeals, Section 6(1) declaration made on 21.7.1977 in respect of the
appellants land, talcing the possession of that land under Section 17(1) and       D
its vesting in the State Government and the handing over of possession of
that land to the Bhainsa Agricultural Market Committee, all of which had
taken place before the filing of W.P. Nos. 3416n8 and 8433/78, are
regarded as set aside by the judgment of the High Court dated 23.8.1982
in W.P. No. 3416n8 and Section 4 sub-section (1) notification published
on 21.7.1977 of the appellants land is regarded as having been revived by          E
that judgment, the ground urged on behalf of the appellants that Section
6(1) declaration dated 24.11.1984 made in respect of the appellants land
was prohibited under clause (1) of the proviso, is well founded and merits
acceptance. It would be so far the reason that making of a declaration
under Section 6( 1) in re spec( of any particular land covered by a notifica-      F
tion published under Section 4(1) after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition {Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1of1967) but
before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
1984 after the expiry of 3 years is clearly prohibited under clause (i) or the
first proviso to Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act and the impugned declaration
dated 24.11.1984 has been in fact made long after the expiry of 3 years time       G
referred to in clause (i) of the first proviso, after the publication of Section
4 sub-section (i) Notification on 21.7.1977:

      But when Section 5-A enquiry is made and Section 6(1) declaration
is made, only on the assumption that the judgment dated 23.8.1982 of the H
    434                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A High Court in W.P. No. 3416178 had set aside the earlier Section 6(1)
    declaration made in respect of the same land and restored the ownership
    of the said land which had vested absolutely in the State Government under
    Section 17(1), to the Appellants, and revived Section 4(1) Notification
    published on 21.7.1977, while in fact the said judgment had not done so,
B   there arises no need to void the impugned declaration which had not
    brought about any legal consequence. The reasons as to how and why
    Section 6(1) declaration and the steps taken for taking possession of the
    land under Section 17(I) and its vesting in the State and giving possession
    of the land to the Samiti for which it was acquired stood unaffected by the
    judgm~nt dated 3.8.1982 in W.P. No. 3416177 are not, far to seek. Section
C   17(1) of the L.A. Act contains a provision which confers on the appropriate
    Govt., special powers in relation to the acquisition of land in case of
    urgency. Further, sub-section (4) of Section 17 empowers the appropriate
    Govt .. to direct that the provisions of Section 5- A shall not apply. This
    sub-section says - when such direction is given, a declaration may be made
D   under section 6 in respect of the concerned land at any time after the date
    of publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1). However,
    when Section 5-A is made not to apply to acquisition of a land, the
    appropriate Government can publish a notification under Section 4 sub-
    section (1) if not already published and then make a declaration under
E   Section 6(1). When once Section 6(1) declaration is made, by operation of
    sub-section (3) of Section 6, such declaration becomes conclusive evidence
    that the land is needed for a public purpose or of a company, as the case
    may be, and after making such declaration appropriate Government may
    acquire the land in the manner appearing in the subsequent provisions of
F   the L.A. Act. In so far as the land to be acquired pursuant to the direction
    of the appropriate Government under sub-section (4) of Section 17 which
    makes Section 5-A inapplicable, sub-section 1 of section 17 required to be
    followed for the purpose of acquisition of the concerned land. That
    provision reads thus:

G
                "17(1). In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Govern-
            ment so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been
            made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication
            of the notice mentioned in Section 9, Sub-section (1), take posses-
            sion of any land needed for public purpose. Such land shall
H           thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all en-
        P. CHINNANNA v. STATE OF AP. [VENKATACHALA, J.]                435

        cumbrances.11                                                        A
       The said povision enables the appropriate Government to take pos-
session of the land concerned on the expiration of 15 days from the
publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9 sub- section (1) not-
withstanding the fact that no award has been made in respect of it. When B
the possession of the land concerned is once taken as provided for there-
under such land is made to vest absolutely in the Government free from
all encumbrances. It must be noted here that taking possession of the land
concerned and its vesting absolutely in the Government free from all
encumbrances does not depend upon an award to be made under Section
11, making of whcih award alone in the case of ordinary acquisition of land C
could have empowered the Collector to take possession of the land under
Section 16 and the taking of which possession would have made the land
vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Af, seen
from the judgment dated 23.8.1982 of the High Court in W.P. No. 3416/77, D
taking possession of the appellants land along with land of others by the
Collector on 10.7.1978 under Section 17(1) is, in fact, made the basis for
its holding that invoking of urgency clause to dispense with Section 5-A
 enquiry was made by the Government mechanically. No doubt, when the
 High Court took the view that acquisition of the concerned land under
 Section 17 of the Act was made pursuant to an order of the Government E
without application of its mind in the ma.tier of making Section 5-A not to
 apply, it was open to it to set aside or quash the subsequent acquisition
 proceedings except Section 4(1) Notification which had followed and re-
 store the ownership of the land to the appellants land if it had to order
 fresh enquiry on the basis of Section 4(1) Notification. Such a setting aside F
 or quashing was inevitable because the acquisition proceedings had been
 completed under Section 17 and the land had vested in the State Govern-
 ment, in as much as, without setting aside that vesting of the land in the
 State Government and restoring the land to the appellants-owners, that
 land was unavailable for subsequent acquisition by following the procedure G
 under Section 5-A, Section 6, Section 11 and Section 16. Thus in the
 circumstances of the case in respect of the land of the appellants, when
 publication of Section 4(1) notification was made on 21.7.1977, when
 declaration under Section 6 was published on 21.7.1977 and taking posses-
 sion of that land under Section 17(1) by the Collector was made on H
    436                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 10.7.1977 and the vesting in the State Government of that land had oc-
    curred on that day, setting aside by the judgment of the High Court in W.P.
    No. 3416n8, of merely the direction given by the Government relating to
    non-applicability of Section 5A to the land, given on 7.7.1977, in our view,
    did not enable to Court to order the starting of fresh proceedings for
B   aqcuisition of the concerned land under Sec. 5-A, in as much as, that land
    concerned on Sec.4(1) Notification had already become the land of the
    Government. 'In this state or facts, when the previous acquisition of the
    land of the appellants made under Section 17 of the Act did never stood
    affected, Sec. 5A enquiry held and subsequent declaration made were
C   superfluous proceedings which were inconsequential. Hence, we feel that
    there is nu need to set aside the impugned declaration in as much as the
    earlier acquisition was complete and had resulted in vesting of the land in
    the St.ate Govt. and there was no land available for acquisition in the
    subsequent proceedings which have been carried puruant to the judgment
D   of the High Court made in W.P. No. 3416 of 1978. Therefore, ip. the stated
    facts, although we rind that no need arises to declare the impugned
    declaration as void we clarify that the earlier proceedings which had taken
    place in respect of .the appellants land, resulting in its vesting in the State
    Government free from encumbrances, has stood unaffected and any award
    made by the Collector or be made by him under the L.A. Act shall be
E
    r.egarded as that based on earlier acquisition proceedings.

           We may, however, state that though we have examined the fresh
    ground of challenge in respect of Section 6(1) declaration raised on behalf
    of the appellants nearly seven years after it had become available to them,
F   the same had been done solely to decide on the scope and applicability of
    the first proviso to Section 6(1) and its explanation, inserted into the L.A.
    Act by the L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984. Such examination cannot, there-
    fore, be understood as laying down that notwithstanding the lapse of time
    or latches in raising a legal ground in a proceeding under Article 226 of
G   the Constitution or a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution that
    there is an obligation on the part of the Court concerned to examine such
    fresh ground. In fact, in relation to acquisition proceeding involving ac-
    quisition of land for public purposes, the Court concerned must be averse
    to entertain writ petitions involving the challenge to such acquisition where
H   there is avoidable delay or !aches since such acquisition, if set aside, would
           P. CHINNANNA v. STATE OF AP. [VENKATACHALA, J.)                   437

not only involve enormous loss of public money but also cause undue delay           A
in carrying out projects meant for general public good. When a fresh
ground of attack to acquisition proceedings, even if it involves purely a
question of law, its entertainment cannot be governed by a principle
different from that which governs entertainment of writ petitions before
the High Court or proceedings arising therefrom before this Court under             B
Article 136 of the Constitution.

         In the result, these civil appeals are dismissed, however without costs.

v.s.s.                                                       Appeals dismissed.