BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

334                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 334                [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A          BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
                                        v.
                       STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                              (IA No. 147134/2021)
B                                       in
                (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1614- 1616/2019)
                                        in
                           (C.A. Nos. 7661-7663/2018)
C                              JANUARY 20, 2022
            [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Object of its
      legislation – The primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out a
D     planned development – Acquisition, is merely incident of such
      planned development.
             Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: s.36 –
      Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisition made
      under the 1976 Act – Held: The provisions of the LA Act would be
E     attracted only insofar as they are applicable to the BDA Act – Where
      there are specific provisions under the BDA Act, the provisions of
      the LA Act will not be attracted – The BDA Act provides a complete
      process for determination of rights – For the purpose of the claims
      in regard to the matters which are not specifically dealt with in the
      BDA Act, reference to the LA Act in terms of s.36 is made – The
F     intention of the Legislature is to take recourse for the provisions of
      the LA Act to a limited extent and subject to the supremacy of the
      provisions of the BDA Act – Having regard to the language employed
      in s.36, it is a legislation by incorporation – Thus, the provisions of
      the LA Act continue to apply for acquisitions made in the BDA Act
G     so far as they are applicable as it is a legislation by incorporation
      having regard to s.36 of the BDA Act – Legislation.
           Offshore Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development
      Authority and others (2011) 3 SCC 139:[2011] 1 SCR 453 – followed
            Legislation: Legislation by incorporation – Incorporation of
H     an earlier Act into the later Act is a legislative device for the sake
                                       334
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                           335
                     KARNATAKA

of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the               A
provisions of the earlier Act into the later Act – Once the
incorporation is made, the provisions of incorporated statute become
an integral part of the statute in which it is transferred and thereafter
there is no need to refer to the statute from which incorporation is
made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on
                                                                            B
the incorporating statute – Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
      C.N. Paramasivam and Another v. Sunrise Plaza
      Through Partner and Others 2013 (9) SCC 460 : [2013]
      4 SCR 1 – relied on.
                                                                            C
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24 –
Applicability to acquisition made under the BDA Act – Held: s.24
of the 2013 Act expressly refers to the land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the LA Act – The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act
and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with                   D
acquisition – Therefore, what is sought to be saved under s.24 of
the 2013 Act is only acquisitions which had been initiated under
the LA Act and not those acquisitions which had been initiated under
any other Central or State enactment – 2013 Act would not regulate
the acquisition proceedings made under the BDA Act – Bangalore              E
Development Authority Act, 1976.
      Sri. L. Ramareddy v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.
      W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA) disposed of on 1 st
      December, 2020 – approved.
      Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore and                   F
      Another v. Anasuya Bai (dead) by Legal Representatives
      and others 2017 (3) SCC 313:[2017] 4 SCR 187 –
      referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
                                                                            G
[2011] 1 SCR 453                 followed                 Para 5
[2013] 4 SCR 1                   relied on                Para 1
[2017] 4 SCR 187                 referred to              Para 15

                                                                            H
336            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
      Nos. 1614-1616 of 2019 In Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1346-1348
      of 2019 In Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2017 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.252 of 2016 (LA-BDA)
B     and Writ Appeal Nos. 2270-2271 of 2017.
            G. V. Chandrashekar, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs., S. K.
      Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Uditha
      Chakravarthy, N. K. Verma, Ms. Apeksha D., Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar,
      Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
C           Prabhuling K. Navadgi, AG, Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv., V.
      N. Raghupathy, D. K. Devesh, Durga Dutt, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Priyanshu
      Upadhyay, Rajeev Kumar, Jitendra Nath Pathak, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,
      T. N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar
      Jha, R. Ganesh Reddy, Anil Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
D           The Order of the Court was passed by
            S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
            I.A.No.147134 of 2021
             (1) A peripheral ring road (for short, ‘PRR’) encircling Bangalore
E     City for the length of 116 Kms. was proposed vide Letter dated
      27.11.2006 by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short)
      to the State Government. The scheme was sanctioned by the Government
      of Karnataka vide UDD 399 MNX 2006 Bangalore dated 23.04.2007.
      This PRR is to provide connectivity to various destinations in all the
      directions for onward traffic without entering the city of Bangalore and
F
      thus minimising the congestion on the outer ring road as well as on the
      internal roads of the city. The affidavit filed by the Additional Chief
      Secretary before this Court dated 09.11.2021 highlights the importance
      of construction of PRR as under:
            “PROJECT NECESSITY
G
            2. At the outset it is submitted that the Bengaluru City needs the
            Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) more than ever in view of the
            phenomenal growth of the city in all directions. The geographical
            extent of the city has grown to 2196 sq. kms. The vehicle count
            as of 2019 was over 80 lakhs. Bengaluru being the capital city,
H
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                                337
            KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

       thousands of vehicles come in every day from various parts of             A
       the state as well as outside the state. There is enormous pressure
       on city roads and public transport system is overstressed. The
       PRR will greatly reduce the stress and congestion in the city roads.
       The Government is very keen to facilitate the early execution of
       the PRR.”
                                                                                 B
       2. Notifications, both preliminary and final, have been issued by
the BDA for acquisition of the lands for the PRR and several writ petitions
were filed before the High Court of Karnataka challenging these
notifications. One such writ petition was W.P.No.4550 of 2008 (Sri
Sudhakar Hegde and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others).
Several other similar matters were clubbed along with the said writ              C
petition. Learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court decided
these matters on 22.07.2014. The questions formulated in the said cases
were as under:
       “(a) Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has
       the effect of frustrating any proceedings with reference to Section       D
       36 of the BDA Act.
       (b) Whether the acquisition proceedings can be said to have lapsed
       by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
       Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 having
       come into force.”                                                         E

       3. On the first question, learned Single Judge held that the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘LA Act’) that are made
applicable to the BDA, are in the nature of legislation by reference. It
was further held that in view of the repeal of the LA Act by coming into
force of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land                     F
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013
Act’) during the pendency of the writ petitions, it would be the
corresponding provisions under the 2013 Act in so far as they are
applicable which would regulate the acquisition proceedings. Learned
Judge further held that the repeal of LA Act and coming into force of            G
2013 Act would not frustrate further proceedings under the Bangalore
Development Authority Act (for short ‘the BDA Act’).
      4. However, on the second question, the Court observed that “it
cannot therefore be said that by virtue of Section 24 of 2013 Act, the
proceedings stood lapsed.” The Court held that the procedure that would
                                                                                 H
338                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     regulate the proceedings would be as per the provisions of 2013 Act in
      so far as they are applicable. This would include the determination of
      compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act as no award had been
      passed in the present proceedings.
              5. BDA has filed the above application contending that the direction
B     in the above cases has totally upset the budget calculation of the project.
      It is further contended that the High Court has failed to refer and to
      consider the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Offshore
      Holdings Private Limited v. Bangalore Development Authority
      and others1. It is also contended that Section 36 of the BDA Act clearly
      mandates legislation by incorporation. BDA has filed this application
C     seeking mainly the following relief:
               “Hold that the 2013 Act is not applicable to the BDA Act and the
               Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11/07/2014 in WP
               4550/2008 and connected matters is per in-curium, otiose and
               unenforceable.”
D
               6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
             7. The BDA Act was enacted by the Legislature of the State of
      Karnataka to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority
      for the development of city of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto
E     and for matters connected therewith. The objects and reasons for enacting
      the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 are as under:
                       “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
                             KARNATAKA ACT, NO.12 OF 1976
                       Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 5-2-1976
F
                     At the conference of the Ministers for Housing and Urban
               Development held at Delhi in November, 1971, it was agreed that
               a common Authority for the development of metropolitan cities
               should be set up.
G                    Bangalore City with its population (as per last census) is a
               Metropolitan City. Different Authorities like the City of Bangalore
               Municipal Corporation, the City Improvement Trust Board, the
               Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, the Housing Board
               and the Bangalore City Planning Authority are exercising
      1
H         (2011) 3 SCC 139
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                              339
            KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      jurisdiction over the area. Some of the functions of these bodies        A
      like development, planning, etc., are overlapping creating thereby
      avoidable confusion, besides hampering co-ordinated development.
      It is, therefore, considered necessary to set up a single authority
      like the Delhi Development Authority for the city areas adjacent
      to it which in course of time will become part of the city.
                                                                               B
             For the speedy implementation of the above said objects as
      also the 20-point programme and for establishing a co-ordinating
      Central Authority, urgent action was called for. Moreover, the
      haphazard and irregular growth would continue unless checked
      by the Development Authority and it may not be possible to rectify
      or correct mistakes in the future.                                       C

            It was therefore necessary to issue the measure in the form
      of an Ordinance.
             The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance.”
       8. Section 14 of the BDA Act underlines the object of the Authority     D
in the below terms:
      “14. Objects of the Authority:- The objects of the authority
      shall be to promote and secure the development of the Bangalore
      Metropolitan Area and for that purpose the authority shall have
      the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and            E
      immovable property, whether within or outside the area under its
      jurisdiction, to carry out building, engineering and other operations
      and generally to do all things necessary of expedient for the purpose
      of such development and for purposes incidental thereto.”
       9. Chapter III of the BDA Act provides for the power of the             F
Authority to take up execution of development schemes for the
development of the Bangalore Metropolitan area. Section 15 empowers
the BDA to frame development schemes with the previous permission
of the government to execute the same. Section 16 enumerates the
particulars to be provided in such schemes. After preparation of the
                                                                               G
scheme under Section 17, the Authority shall draw up a notification
furnishing the particulars of the scheme and the place where the lands
proposed for acquisition. Within 30 days, notice shall be issued to the
concerned persons inviting objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition.
After considering the representations received in that regard, the scheme
shall be submitted to the government for sanction with modifications, if       H
340            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     any, together with the plan, estimates and other particulars. After
      considering the proposals, the Government has to sanction the same.
      Upon sanction of the scheme under Section 19, the Government shall
      publish declaration that the lands are required for the public purpose.
      These are the formalities required to be complied with before proceeding
      further in the matter of execution of the scheme.
B
             10. Chapter IV of the BDA Act deals with “Acquisition of Land”.
      This chapter contains Sections 35 and 36. The relevant provision for the
      purpose of the present case is sub-section (1) of Section 36 which is as
      under:
C           “36. Provisions applicable to the acquisition of land
            otherwise than by agreement – (1) The acquisition of land
            under this Act otherwise than by agreement within or without the
            Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be regulated by the provisions,
            so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.”

D            11. Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the BDA Act states that after
      the land vests in the Government under Section 16 of the LA Act, then
      the Government upon payment of cost of acquisition and upon the
      Authority agreeing to pay any further cost which may be incurred on the
      acquisition, shall transfer the land to the Authority whereupon it shall
      vest in the Authority.
E
             12. The primary object of the BDA Act is to carry out a planned
      development and acquisition, is merely incident of such planned
      development. It is also clear that the provisions of the LA Act would be
      attracted only insofar as they are applicable to the BDA Act. Where
      there are specific provisions under the BDA Act, the provisions of the
F     LA Act will not be attracted. The BDA Act has provided a complete
      process for determination of rights. For the purpose of the claims in
      regard to the matters which are not specifically dealt with in the BDA
      Act, reference to the LA Act in terms of Section 36 has been made. The
      intention of the Legislature is to take recourse for the provisions of the
G     LA Act to a limited extent and subject to the supremacy of the provisions
      of the BDA Act. This is evident from the expression “so far as they are
      applicable” employed in sub-section (1) of Section 36. In Offshore
      Holdings Private Limited (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court,
      after considering the scheme of the BDA Act and having regard to the
      language employed in Section 36, held that it is a legislation by
H     incorporation.
         BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                             341
               KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

       13. Incorporation of an earlier Act into the later Act is a legislative   A
device for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction
of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later Act. Once the
incorporation is made, the provisions of incorporated statute become an
integral part of the statute in which it is transferred and thereafter there
is no need to refer to the statute from which incorporation is made and
                                                                                 B
any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating
statute. (See: C.N. Paramasivam and Another vs. Sunrise Plaza
Through Partner and Others2)
       14. In Offshore Holdings Private Limited (supra), it was held
as under:
              “43. All these provisions show that the BDA Act has                C
       provided for a complete adjudicatory process for determination
       of rights and claims. Only in regard to the matters which are not
       specifically dealt with in the BDA Act, reference to the Land
       Acquisition Act, in terms of Section 36, has been made, for example,
       acquisition of land and payment of compensation. This also is a           D
       pointer to the BDA Act being a self-contained Act.
              XXX                             XXX                       XXX
              50. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case in
       hand, it will be clear that the provisions relating to acquisition like
       passing of an award, payment of compensation and the legal                E
       remedies available under the Central Act would have to be applied
       to the acquisitions under the State Act but the bar contained in
       Sections 6 and 11-A of the Central Act cannot be made an integral
       part of the State Act as the State Act itself has provided specific
       time-frames under its various provisions as well as consequences
       of default thereto. The scheme, thus, does not admit such                 F
       incorporation.
              XXX                             XXX                       XXX
              57. The sequitur to the above principle is that the BDA
       Act has already been held to be a valid law by this Court not
       repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act as they operate in their            G
       respective fields without any conflict. For the reasons
       aforereferred as well as the detailed reasons given by us in Girnar
       Traders (3)5, which reasoning would form part of this judgment,
       we have no hesitation in concluding that the BDA Act is a self-
2
    2013 (9) SCC 460                                                             H
342                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A              contained code. The language of Section 36 of the BDA Act clearly
               mandates legislation by incorporation and as per the scheme of
               the two Acts, effective and complete implementation of the State
               law without any conflict is possible. The object of the State law
               being planned development, acquisition is merely incidental thereto
               and, therefore, such an approach does not offend any of the known
B
               principles of statutory interpretation.”
                                                             (emphasis supplied)
            15. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore
      and Another vs. Anasuya Bai (dead) by Legal Representatives
      and others3 this Court was considering an identical question. There it
C     was held that Section 11-A of the LA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act
      are not applicable for acquisition made under KIADB Act. It was held
      thus:
                   “30. Having regard to the aforesaid raison d’être for non-
            application of the old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision
D           of Section 24(2) of the new LA Act making Section 11-A of the
            old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. We would like to
            refer to the judgment in State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan4 in
            this behalf where following proposition is laid down: (SCC p. 385,
            para 15)
E                  “15. … ‘Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions
            of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral
            and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally
            unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This
            principle, however, will not apply in the following cases:

F                     (a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are
               supplemental to each other;
                      (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;
                      (c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not
               imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent
               Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and
G
                      (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either
               expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions
               to the subsequent Act.’”

      3
          2017 (3) SCC 313
H     4
          2011 (3) SCC 1
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                           343
            KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      16. On 3.12.2020 this Court in this very case has held as under:      A
      “Needless to state that the acquisition of the land under the BDA
      Act is regulated by the provisions of the LA Act so far as they are
      applicable. (See: Section 36 of the BDA Act). The borrowed
      provisions of LA Act, became an integral part of the BDA Act
      and are totally unaffected by the repeal of the LA Act. In other      B
      words, the provisions of the LA Act are incorporated into the
      BDA Act so far as they are applicable. Of course, the bar
      contained in Section 6 and 11-A of the LA Act, are not applicable
      to the BDA Act. We have discussed this aspect of the matter in
      our main judgment dated 03/08/2018. It is also clear that the
      provisions of the Right of Compensation and Transparency in Land      C
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 are not
      applicable for the acquisition made under the BDA Act. Final
      notification has also been issued after the pronouncement of
      judgment by this Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 7661-7663 of 2018
      dated 03/08/2018. We direct the BDA to proceed with the               D
      acquisition of the land as proposed in the notification.”
       17. Therefore, the provisions of the LA Act continue to apply for
acquisitions made in the BDA Act so far as they are applicable as it is a
legislation by incorporation having regard to Section 36 of the BDA Act.
      18. The question may also be examined from a different angle.         E
Section 24 of the 2013 Act expressly refers to the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the LA Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act is as under:
      “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 shall
      be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases - (1)
                                                                            F
      Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
      land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894,—
             (a)   where no award under section 11 of the said Land
                   Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions
                   of this Act relating to the determination of             G
                   compensation shall apply; or
             (b)   where an award under said section 11 has been made,
                   then such proceedings shall continue under the
                   provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the
                   said Act has not been repealed.                          H
344                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A               (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case
                of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
                Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11
                has been five years or more prior to the commencement of this
                Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or
                the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be
B
                deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so
                chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition
                afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
                      Provided that where an award has been made and
                compensation in respect of a majority of and holdings has not
C               been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
                beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
                section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
                compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
             19. The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and not any other
D     Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition. Therefore, what is
      sought to be saved under Section 24 of the 2013 Act is only acquisitions
      which had been initiated under the LA Act and not those acquisitions
      which had been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.
      The expression contained in Section 24 of the LA Act cannot be given
E     extensive interpretation by adding words into the provision, in the absence
      of the provision itself giving rise to any such implication. We are of the
      view that 2013 Act would not regulate the acquisition proceedings made
      under the BDA Act.
             20. Section 105 of the 2013 Act states that the provisions of the
F     2013 Act shall not apply to the enactments in the Fourth Schedule or are
      to apply with modifications in terms of notification issued by the Central
      Government under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act. Section 105 does not
      apply to the present case.
            21. Recently, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in
G     Sri. L. Ramareddy vs. the State of Karnataka and Ors. 5 has
      considered identical questions in great detail and has concluded as under:
                “44. In the circumstances, it is concluded and held that Section
                24 does not take within its scope nor does it apply to acquisitions

      5
H         W.A. No.1415/2018 (LA-BDA) disposed of on 1 st December, 2020
      BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. STATE OF                                   345
            KARNATAKA [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

         which have been initiated under the provisions of any other                A
         enactment particularly, State enactment, such as, BDA Act. The
         said Section is restricted to only those acquisitions which have
         been initiated under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 only. Subject
         to compliance of the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2)
         of Section 24, the land owner would be entitled to the deeming
                                                                                    B
         provision regarding lapse of acquisition and not otherwise.”
         We are in complete agreement with this judgment of the High
Court.
      22. We may also notice here that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court has not followed the judgment in Offshore Holdings Private               C
Limited (supra) wherein it was clearly held that the provisions of the
LA Act are applicable to the BDA Act by incorporation.
       23. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of the High Court in
Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was not justified in holding that the
provisions of LA Act that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the             D
nature of legislation by reference. The learned Judge has also erred in
holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013
Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition
proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination
of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act. It is hereby clarified that
since LA Act has been incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are              E
applicable, the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the
acquisitions made under the BDA Act. Therefore, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra)
and other connected matters is hereby overruled.
         24. Application is accordingly disposed of.                                F


Devika Gujral                                           Application dispossed of.



                                                                                    G




                                                                                    H