Holding

Section 6(1)(b) plainly allows an intermediary to retain land comprising or appertaining to buildings or structures irrespective of khas possession, so the petitioner is entitled to retain the land.

Summary

The petitioner, an heir who inherited two plots leased to Scene Screen Ltd. for a cinema, filed Form ‘B’ under Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates’ Acquisition Act, 1953, to retain the lands as an intermediary. After the Act came into force, the State began collecting rent directly from the lessee, prompting the petitioner to seek a writ directing the State not to recognize the lessee as a tenant and not to collect rent. A Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not retain the land because he was not in khas possession. The Calcutta High Court Division Bench reversed, holding that Section 6(1)(b) does not require khas possession for an intermediary to retain land comprising or appertaining to buildings or structures, and that the High Court should not inquire into the petitioner’s status as an intermediary. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the plain language of the statute grants the right of retention without the possession condition, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 requires an intermediary to be in khas possession of land comprising or appertaining to buildings/structures to retain it.
Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, may examine the petitioner’s claim of being an intermediary.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 24
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953s. 10, s. 2, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6(1)(b), s. 6(2)

Subjects

intermediarykhas possessionland retentionstatutory interpretationWest Bengal Estates' Acquisition Actnon‑agricultural tenantrent collectiontenancy law

Judgment

A STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
v.
SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

B [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Tenancy and land Laws :

West Bengal Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 : Section 6(1)(b).
c
Retention of land-By Intermediary-Right of-Father of intermediary
gave two plots of land on lease to a company for building a cinema house-
After the Act came into force the said intermediary submitted Form ' B
proposing to retain the land under S.6(1)(b)-However, the company paM
D rent directly to the State and not to the intermediary-The intermediary filed
a writ petition for a direction to the State not to recognise the company as
a tenant and not to accept rent from it-Single Judge dismissed the petition
on the ground that the intermediary was not in khas possession-However,
the Division Bench allowed the appeal-Held: S.6(J)(b} does not lay down
that the intermediary should be in khas possession of the land in order to
E retain the land-Hence, the Division Bench rightly allowed the appeal.
Constitution of India, I950:

Article 226-Jurisdiction-Scope and ambit of-Petitioner himself
accepted that he was an intermediary-Therefore, High Court should not
F have embarked upon an inquiry to determine that he is indeed the
intermediary-Such enquiry is clearly beyond the scope of the prl'Jceeding.

Interpretation of Statutes:

Basic Rule-Literal Construction-If the plain language of the statute
G is clear and unambiguous it is not open to the court to give a different
interpretation.

Words and Phrases:

"Intermediary"-Meaning of-In the context ofS.6(1) ofthe West Bengal
H 502
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. 503

Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953. A
The 2nd respondent's father had given two plots of land on lease for 30
years to the 1st respondent for the purpose of building a cinema house and
shop rooms. The 2nd respondent became the owner of the said land after the
death of his father. After coming into force of the West Bengal Estates'
Acquisition Act, 1953, the 2nd respondent submitted a return in From 'B' B
proposing to retain the said land as an intermediary under Section 6 of the
Act. In the record of rights published in 1931 the two plots of land were
recorded in the name of the 2nd respondent's father as having pucca
structures therein. In the record of rights prepared under Section 39 of the
Act the said two plots of land were recorded in the name of the 1st respondent- C
lessee as a non-agricultural tenant under the 2nd respondent.

When the 2nd respondent demanded arrears of rent from the 1st
respondent it replied that the 2nd respondent was no longer entitled to receive
the rent as the same was being paid directly to the appellant-State.
D
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition before the High
Court for a direction to the State not to recognise the 1st respondent as a
lessee under the State and not to realise the rent from it. Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition on the finding that under Section 6(1)(b) of the
Act the 2nd respondent was not entitled to retain the lands covered by the
structm;es erected by the 1st respondent. E
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and held that the
disputed land was being used for non-agricultural purposes by the lessee since
1931; that the land did not vest in the State under the Act; that the 1st
respondent being a non-agricultural user was liable to pay the rent and that
the 2nd respondent was not an intermediary. Hence this appeal. F
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The question to be considered is whether the claim for
retaining the land under the provision of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal
Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 is acceptable. For deciding that question it was G
not necessary for the Division Bench to embark upon the inquiry whether
the respondent No. 2 was a non-agricultural tenant and on that basis consider
the further question whether his interest in the land at alt vested under the
Act. The respondent No. 2 having himself accepted the position that he was
an intermediary the High Court in the writ jurisdiction should not have H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A embarked upon an inquiry which was clearly beyond the scope of the
proceeding. (511-E-G]

2. The Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the
Single Judge. Section 6(1)(b) does not lay down that intermediary should be
in khas possession of the land comprised in or appertaining to building or
B structures, whether erected by him or not. On a clos~ look at Section 6 it is
manifest that wherever the legislature intended to lay down the requirement
of "khas possession" as condition precedent for the claim of right of retention
it expressly states so. Section 6(1)(b) clearly and unambiguously lays down
that the intermediary shall be entitled to retain the land comprised in or
C appertaining to buildings or structures whether erected by the intermediary
or not. It is a well accepted principle of interpretation of statutory provisions
that if the plain language of the Section is clear or unambiguous it is not
open to a Court to interpret it giving a meaning different from the plain
grammatical meaning of the provision. The Single Judge, in view of the plain
and unambiguous language of the provisions of the Act, was in error in
D introducing the condition ofkhas possession in Section 6(1)(b) even though
the Section made no such provision. Each clause of Section 6(1)(b) refers to
a separate category of land. The reason for and the wisdom of the legislature
insisting on khas possession in respect of certain categories of land while
not insisting upon the same in others, cannot be questioned. (512-C-F]
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 834 Qf 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.77 of the Calcutta High Court
in 0.0. No. 409of1961.

F Tapas Ray, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and Jaideep Gupta for the
Appellants.

Bhaskar P. Gupta, Ms. Shipra Ghose, P.K. Mukherjee, Arun K. Sinha,
Manoj Chatterjee, Ms. K. Iyer, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee and Rakesh Singh for
the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary
Land and Land Reforms Department, the Junior Land Reforms Officer,
Barrackpore Circle, P.S. Khardah, Distt. 24 Parganas and the Additional
H Collector and Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), 24 Parganas
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 505
(North) have filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the Division Bench A
of the Calcutta High Court dated 7.4.1977 allowing the Appeal from Original
Order No. 409 of 1961 filed by Sasthidas Malik, (respondent No. 2 herein) on
setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 915/
, 59. The Civil Rule was filed by Sasthidas Malik who will hereinafter be referred
to as the petitioner.
B
The dispute raised in the case relates to the question whether the writ
petitioner is entitled to retain the lands comprised in plot Nos. 11 and 32 under
Khatyan Nos. 21 and 390 respectively of Mouza Kalidah extending over an
area of 2.3432 acres, under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates'
Acquisition A~t, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the records of C
right published in the year 1931 the lands were recorded in the name of the
petitioner's father and as having pucca structures therein. By two indentures
of lease dated 26.11.1947 and 25.8.1952, Prosad Das Malik, father of the
petitioner, gave lease of the said two plots of land to Mis Scene Screen (Pvt.)
Ltd., respondent No. l herein, (hereinafter referred to as the lessee), for the
purpose of building a cinema house and shop rooms, for a term of 30 years D
on payment of rent mentioned in the documents. After the death of his father
the petitioner had become the owner of the said lands. After coming into force
of the West Bengal Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 the petitioner submitted
a return in Form 'B' proposing to retain the lands covered by the said leases
as an intermediary under section 6 of the Act. In the record of rights prepared E
under section 39 of the Act the lands were recorded in the name ofrespondent
No. I as a non-agricultural tenant under the petitioner. When the petitioner
demanded arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4 725 from the lessee it replied that
as a result of operation of the provisions of the Act the petitioner was no
longer entitled to receive the rent which was being paid to the Government
of West Bengal. Faced with the situation the petitioner filed the writ petition F
contending inter-alia that the State Government has no right to collect rent
from the - lessee as under section 6( l )(b) of the Act the petitioner is entitled
to retain the lands and he has elected to do so by submitting the return in
Form 'B' including these lands. Having failed to get favourable response from
the officers concerned of the State the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking G
inter alia a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and its officers
not to recognise the lessee as a tenant under the State and not to realise rent
from it.

In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents l to 3
to the writ petition, who are the appellants herein, the gist of the case pleaded H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was that the petitioner was not entitled to retain the rent receiving interest
in respect of the land leased in favour of the respondent-lessee. Even though
the leases were cr~ated prior to the date of coming into force of the Act,
reference was made to section 5(c) of the Act in support of the contention
that the lessor's interest created in favour of the predecessor in interest of r.
B the petitioner had vested in the State on April 14, 1955 on the same terms and
conditions as agreed between the lessor and the lessee on the date of
vesting .

.The learned Single Judge in his judgment noticed the relevant provisions
of the Act particularly section 6(1 )(b) of the Act as it stood prior to the
C amendment of the Act by the West Bengal Act 9of1961 which was published
in the Gazette on April 24, 1961 and held that the section 6 aims on taking
away all the lands of intermediary except such portions thereof as are in his
actual possession within the specified limits. The learned Single Judge was
of the view that it would not be right to hold that the land in the possession ~
of tenants could be retained by the ex-intermediary merely because of the
D absence of the words "khas possession" in section 6(l)(b). Interpreting
section 6(1) (b) the learned Single Judge held that an intermediary can only
retain the land comprised in building or structures owned by him or held
under him by leave or licence and not by a tenant. The learned single Judge
dismissed the writ petition on the finding that under section 6(l)(b) as it stood
E before the amendment as also under the altered provision after the amendment,
the petitioner was not entitled to retain the lands covered by the structures
erected by the lessee.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the
petitioner filed the appeal which was decided in his favour by the Judgment
dated 7th April, 1977 which is under challenge in this appeal. The Division
F Bench took the view that the ·appellant is a tenant in respect of the non-
agricultural land holding under the proprietor or a tenure. holder and so he
is not an agricultural tenant within the meaning of clause (k) of section 2 of
the Act. He is also not an 'intermediary' as defined in the Act. Elucidating
the poini the Division Bench observed that as the disputed land is a part of
G the Government Khas Mahal land, it must have been settled in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant by the Government. That the
relationship between the Government and the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellant as per the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act would be that of
the landlord and tenant. Referring to the status of the lessee -respondent No.
4 in that appeal the Division Bench observed that the said respondent has
H been recorded as possessor ('dakhalkar') in tespect of the non-agricultural
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 507
land and that there is no dispute that the said lessee is a non-agricultural A
tenant. Relying on the C.S. Record-of-Rights in which the names of the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant including the name of his father were
recorded as tenure holders and in the absence of any evidence that the
disputed land was ever used for agricultural purposes; on the contrary there
being positive evidence that the disputed land was being used for non-
agricultural purposes by the lessee since 1931, the Division Bench held that B
the appellant being non-agricultural user was liable to pay the rent. The
Division Bench rejected the contention raised on behalf of the State and its
officers that since under the document of lease the appellant was given a rent
receiving right he is an intermediary for the purposes of the Act. On the said
finding the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge C
and directed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the
respondents not to realise the rent from respondent No. 4 (R-1 herein) who
holds the land as a tenant under the appellant and further directed issue of
a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the State Government
pr its officers directing to treat the said land as vested land and to realise rent
from respondent No. 4 (R-1 herein) in respect thereof. D
Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
strenuously urged that the Division Bench of the High Court committed error
in holding that the interest of the lessor-respondent No. 2 in the land in
question did not vest in the State under the West Bengal Estates' Acquisition
Act, 1953. According to the counsel, the Division Bench having found that E
respondent No. 1 was undisputedly a non-agricultural tenant holding the land
under the respondent No. 2, should have held that all such interests between
the possessor of the land and the State Government were intermediary interests
which stood vested under the said Act. The learned counsel also submitted
that since respondent No. 2 himself submitted a return in Form 'B' expressing F
the intention to retain the lands in dispute thereby acknowledging his status
as an intermediary, the Division Bench was not right in holding to the contrary.
Shri Manoj Chatterjee learned counsel for Respondent- i also adopted
the contention raised on behalf of the appellants.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, the lessor supported G
the judgment of the Division Bench under challenge contending that in the
facts and circumstances of the case respondent No. 2 could not be said to
be an 'intermediary' under the Act, and therefore, the Division Bench rightly
held that his interest in the lands did not vest in the State Government.

Since the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.4.1955 H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and the vesting of the intermediary estate therein took effect from 14.4.1955
the statutory provisions of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment in 196 l
are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case.

In Sectjon 2 of the Act are incorporated the definitions of the different
terms used in the Act. Under clause (f) of the said section it is provided that
B "estate" or "tenure" includes part of an estate or part of a tenure. Under
clause (h) "incumbrance" in relation to estates and rights of intermediaries
therein does not include the rights of a raiyat or of an under-raiyat or of a
non-agricultural tenant.

In clause (I) "intermediary" means a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-
C tenure-holder or any other intermediary above a raiyat or a non- agricultural
tenant. Non-agricultural land is defined in clause U) to mean land other than
agricultural land.

In clause (k) 'non-agricultural tenant' means a tenant of non-agricultural
land who holds under a proprietor, a tenure-holder or an under- tenure holder.
D
In section 2(p) it is laid down that the expressions used in this Act and
not otherwise defined have in relation to the areas to which the Bengal
Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885), applies, the same meaning as in that Act
and in relation to other areas meaning as similar thereto as the existing law
relating to land tenures applying to such areas, permits.
E
In Section 3 it is provided that the provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law
or in any contract express or implied or in any instrument and notwithstanding
any usage or custom to the contrary.

F Section 4 iri which provision is made regarding issue of notification
vesting estates and rights of intermediaries lays down in sub-section(l) that
the State Government may from time to time by notification declare that with
effect from the date mentioned in the notification, all estates and the rights
of every intermediary in each such estate situated in any district or part of
a district specified in the notification, shall vest in the State free from all
G incumbrances.
In section 5 the effects of a notification issued under section 4 are
enumerated. The relevant portions of the same are quoted hereunder :

"5. Effect of notification - Upon the due publication of a notification
H under section 4, on and from the date of vesting -
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 509

(a) the estates and the rights of intermediaries in the estates, to which A
the declaration applies, shall vest in the State free from all
incumbrances; in particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the provisions of this clause, every one of the following rights which
may be owned by an intermediary shall vest in the State, namely :-

xxx xxx xxx B
(c) until the provisions of Chapter VI are given effect to, every raiyat
or non-agricultural tenant, holding any land under an intermediary,
shall hold the same directly under the State, as if the State had been
the intermediary, and on the same terms and conditions as immediately
before the date of vesting : C
(d) every raiyat or non-:igricultural tenant holding under an
intermediary shall be bound to pay to the State his rent and other
dues in respect of his land, accruing on and from the date of vesting,
and every payment made in contravention of this clause shall be void
and of no effect." D
In Section 6 the provisions regarding right of intermediary to retain
certain lands are enumerated. The relevant provisions are quoted hereinbelow:
"6. Right of intermediary to retain certain lands-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 4 and 5, an E
intermediary shall, except in the case mentioned in the proviso to sub-
section (2) but subject to the other provisions of that sub-section, be
entitled to retain with effect from the date of vesting-
(a) land comprised in homesteads;
xxx xxx xxx F
(b) land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures,
whether erected by the intermediary or not; •
(c) non-agricultural land in his khas possession, not exceeding fifteen
a~res in area, and excluding any land retained under clause (a) -
G
Provided that the total area of land retained by an intermediary under
clauses (a) and (c) shall not exceed twenty acres, as may be chosen
by him;

Provided further that if the land retained by an intermediary under
clause (c) or any part thereof is not utilised for a period of five H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A consecutive years from the date of vesting, for a gainful or productive
purpose, the land or the part thereof may be resumed by the State
Government subject to payment of compensation determined in
accordance with the principles laid down in sections 23 and 24 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894);

B (d) agricultural land in his khas possession, not exceeding twenty five
acres in area, as may be chosen by him:

Provided that if he does not cultivate such land or any part thereof
for a period of four consecutive years from the date of vesting, the
State Government shall be entitled to resume such land or part thereof
C upon payment of such compensation as may be determined in
accordance with the principles laid down in sections 23 and 24 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894;

xxx xxx xxx"

D (2) An intermediary who is entitled to retain possession of any land
under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to hold such land directly
under the State from the dote of vesting as a tenant, subject to such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed and subject to payment
of such rent as may be determined under the provisions of this Act
and as entered in the record-of-rights finally published under Chapter
E V except that no rent shall be payable for land referred to in clause
(h) or (i):

Provided that if any tank fishery or any land comprised in a tea-
garden, orchard, mill, factory or workshop was held immediately before
the date of vesting under a lease, such lease shall be deemed to have
F
been given by the State Government on the same terms and conditions
as immediately before such date.
(Emphasis supplied)

Section 10 which provides for the Collector to take charge of estates
G and rights of intermediaries vested in the State provides that upon the
publication of any notification under section 4, the Collector shall take charge
of estates and interests of intermediaries which vest in the State under section
5.

From the statutory provisions referred to above it is fairly clear that
H upon publication of a notification under section 4 estates and the rights of
STATE v. SCENE SCREEN (PVT.) LTD. [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 511

- intermediaries in the estates to which the declaration applies are vested in the
_ State free from all encumbrances. Section 6 vests a statutory right in the
intermediary to retain certain lands a~ enumerated in the section. Under sub-
section (I) of section 6 an intermediary is entitled to retain the land comprised
A

in or appertaining to building and structures owned by the intermediary or
by any person, not being a tenant, holding under him by leave or licence.
Clause (c) of sub-section (1) which refers to non-agricultural land provides
B
that such land in khas possession of the intermediary including land held
under him by any person not being a tenant by leave or licence not exceeding
15 acres in area and excluding any land retained under clause (a) i.e. land
comprised in homestead. The different clauses (a) to (j) in sub-section (1) of
section 6 enumerated the different types of land which an intermediary is c
entitled to retain after vesting, each clause refers to a distinct and separate
category of land which he is entitled to retain. However, the ceiling on the
extent of land under the broad heads, agricultural land non-agricultural land
and forests are also provided in I.he section.

In the present case, as noted above, respondent No. 2 filed a return in D
Form 'B' stating therein that he intended to retain the land in dispute with
him after vesting. Such a return could only be filed by an intermediary.
Respondent No. 2 by submitting the return accepted the position that he was
an intermediary coming within the purview of the Act. Therefore the question
to be considered is whether the claim for retaining the land under the provision
E
of section 6(1) (b) is acceptable. For deciding that question it was not
necessary for the Division Bench to embark upon the inquiry whether the

- respondent No. 2 was a non-agricultural tenant and on that basis consider
the further question whether his interest in the land at all vested under the
Act. The respondent having himself accepted the position that he was an
intermediary the High Court in the writ jurisdiction should not have embarked F
upon an inquiry which was clearly beyond the scope of the proceeding.
Therefore, in our considered view, the Division Bench of the High Court was
not right in taking up the question whether Krishanamany from whom father
of the respondent No. 2 purchased the land was a tenure holder and whether
the interest of his father and after him of respondent No. 2 was also that of
a tenure holder. In that connection certain provisions of the Bengal Tenancy
G
Act, 1885 and decisions of Calcutta High Court and the Privy Council have
~
been referred to. In view of the matter we have taken we do not feel called
upon to determine the question of correctness of the findings in that regard
on merits. At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that the entire discussion
on that question was unnecessary for decision of the case. H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A However, that is not the end of the problem. The question that remains
to be considered is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge l;iolding inter a/ia that the petitioner
-
respondent No. 2 herein was not entitled to retain the land in dispute because
he was not in khas possession of the same. In our considered view the
B Division Bench was right in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.

Section 6(l)(b) does not lay down that intermediary should be in khas
possession of the land comprised in or appertaining to buildings or structures,
whether erected by him or not. On a close look at the section 6 it is manifest
C that wherever the legislature intended to lay down the requirement of "khas
possession" as a condition precedent for the claim of right of retention it
expressly stated so. In this connection the provisions of section 6(l)(c) and
(d) may be seen. Section 6( l) (b) clearly and unambiguously lays down that
the intermediary shall be entitled to retain the land comprised in or appertaining
to buildings or structures whether erected by the intermediary or not. It is a
D well accepted principle of interpretation of statutory provisions that if the
plain language of the section is clear or unambiguous it is not open to a Court
to interpret it giving a meaning different from the plain grammatical meaning
of the provision. The learned Single Judge, in view of the plain and
unambiguous language of the provisions of the Act, was in error in introducing
E the condition of khas possession in section 6( l )(b) even though the section
made no such provision. Equally incorrect was the reason by the learned
Single Judge that if the requirement of khas possession by the intermediary
is not read into that section it will result in discrimination between different
categories of lands which the intermediary may be entitled to retain. Each
clause of section 6 (I) refers to a separate category of land. The reason for
F and the wisdom of the legislature in insisting on khas possession in respect
of certain categories of land while not insisting upon the same in others,
cannot be questioned. We are therefore of the view that the Division Bench
of the High Court rightly.set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In conclusion while not agreeing with the reasoning in the judgment of
G
the Division Bench under challenge we endorse its decision that the respondent
No. 2 is enti,tled to retain the land which was leased in favour of the respondent
No. I for construction of the cinema hall. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed,
but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs.

H v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.