gnnK‘ ‘ @ \ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUK DIVISION BENCH j i CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON’BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. I Writ Petition No.1062 of 2004 x ~~w—~\’\:_ V x ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION J Sci/— CHI‘éiWusTléE“ 7 14/09/2006 \N HON'BLE sHRI D.R. DEsHMUKH J I ‘ . . I. 9&08M . f“ \Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh /’“ Judge 16/09/2006 POST IT FOR PR0N0UN¢EMENT / OF ORDER 0N: 19/09/2006 ‘4 §_I Sd/— CHIEF Jus‘T/CE 13/09/2006. 7&5 [4,}: Kn HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON’BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. Writ Pe’iition (PIL) No. 1062 of 2004 PETITIONERS Amit Singh Walia Son of Lekhraj Walia, aged 24 years, R/0'29/919, Civil Lines, Opp. PSC Office, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) by Profession Advocate. Rajendra Kumar, age 42 years, S/o. Shri Daulat Ram, R/o. Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) by Profession'free Lance Journalists. VERSUS THE STATE OF C.G. THROUGH The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) THE COLLECTOR, Raigarh (C.G.) SMT. SHASHI KUMAR, aged 4O years, W/o. Arun Mishra, Resident of Viilage Shivpuri P.C. No.15, R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) SMT. PARVATI KUMARI TlWARl aged 42 years, W/o. Awadhesh Tiwari Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C. No‘15, R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 'Lri RESPONDENTS ix SMT. SUSHMA NAIK, D/o. Late Hari Prasad Naik, Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C.No.15, ~R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) SHRI RAJKISHGRE MISHRA, aged 45 years S/o. Bachdhulal Mishra, Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C. No.15, R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) SHRI suoHzR KUMAR MISHRA,‘aged 45 years, S/o. Suresh Chandra Mishra, Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C.No.15, R.l. Circle; Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) \ ‘Smt. Shikha Rani Naik, aged 45 years, W/o. Shri Tarkeshwar Naik, Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C. No.15, R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) SHRI DINESH KUMAR, aged 45 years, S/o. Shri Mahadev Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C. No.15, R.l. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) TARKESHWAR NAIK, aged about 48 years, S/o. Late Hari Prasad Naik, Resident of Station Road, Raigarh (C.G.) SMT. TARLIKA KUMAR, aged 42 years, D/o. Mahendra Nath and W/o. Ratan Kumar Resident of Village Shivpuri P.C. No,15, Rl. Circle, Block Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) SHRI ASHOK MISHRA, aged 52 years S/o. Vishnu Prasad Mishra Resident of Naik Bada, Station Road, Raigarh, (C.G.) SHANKAR BHAGWAN NANDESHWAR, Mahadev Mandir through Sarvarkar Tarkeshwar Naik S/o. Late Hari Prasad Naik, Resident of Naikbada, Station Road, Raigarh (C.G.) SMT. SITA RANI NAIK, aged 77 years, Late Hari Prasad Naik, Resident of Naikbada, Station Road, Raigarh (C.G.) MR. K. RUDRASEN SINDHU, aged 50 years S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhavan, Moddle Town, Rantak (Hariyana) VIRSEN SINDHU, aged 45 years S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rontak (Haryana) DEVSUMAN SINGHU, aged 30 years, S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, Resident» of ‘s96/4, Sindhu BhaWan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) SATYAPAL SINDHU, aged 32 years, S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu‘ Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) 1,2. i4. 19. KIRPAL SINDHU, aged 4O years, S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, aged 73 years, S/o. Choudhry Shirshl Ram Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) CAPTAIN ABHIMANYU SINDHU, aged 47 years, S/o. Choudhry Mitrasen Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) PARAM MITRA MANAV NIRMAN SANSTHAN, through Captain Abhimanyu Sindhu, Resident of 96/4, Sindhu Bhawan, Moddle Town, Rohtak (Haryana) AJAY PAL, aged 29 years, S/o. Shri Bhagat Singh by caste Jaat Resident of Village and P.O. Khandakhedi Tahsil Hansi District Hisaar (Haryana) VIJAY PAL, aged 32 years, S/o. Bhagat Singh by caste Jaat Resident of Village and P.O. Kahndakhedi, Tahsil Hansi District Hisaar (Haryana) 24. Present:- Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri Ajit Singh, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents No.1 & 2. Shri- Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Amrito Das, Advocates for respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8 &10. Shri K.N. Bhatt, t‘Senior Advocate with. Shri Prateek Sharma, - ‘& Advocate for respondents No.1 5 to 24. O R D E R (Passed on J3 September, 2006) The following order ofthe Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ. : This writ petition is filed by Shri Amit Singh Walia, S/o Shri Lekhraj Walia, who is a practicing Advocate in Raipur and partner of V.K. Munshi & associates, a law firm and Shri Rajendra Kumar, S/o Shri Daulat Ram, a Freelance Journalist, as a Public interest Litigation (PIL) to espouse a puic cause. What prompted them to file this PIL, in their own words, is bl the foilowing circumstance : “The petitioners are citizens of the lndia and are filing the present writ petition in public interest to expose the fraudulent'transfers of more than 400 acres of valuable forest land situated at village Shivpuri P.C. No.15, Bandobast No.398, R.l. Circle, Block, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) belonging to the State of Chhattisgarh by the Respondents 3 to 14 in favour of the Respondent No.15 to 24 through 13 different Deeds of Sate executed between 26-12—1996 to 16— 08—2001, notwithstanding the fact that the aforesaid 400 acres of forest land had already vested in the State firstly by virtue of section 3 of M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals & Alienated Lands) Act, ”(950 (hereinafter called “the 1950 Act”) and secondly by virtue of section 12 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called “the 1960 Act”) and as such the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 had no right, title or interest in the said land on the dates of the said 13 deeds of sale. Although‘according to a very modest estimate the market‘value of the aforesaid 400 acres of the forest land with several lacs of trees standing thereon on the date of filing of this writ petition wdrks out more than 50 crores, the entire land had been sold for a nominal consideration of Rs.18,04,442/— in the aggregate through the aforesaid 13 fraudulent Deeds of sale, ln fact, the petftioners as public spirited persons have been constrained to file the’present writ petition in @ ‘k public interest on account of the gross negligence, inaction, apathy and/or connivance between the directly concerned officers of the State Government and the family members of Late Hari Prasad Naik, the original owners of the aforesaid lands prior to vesting by the 1950 Act and the 1960 Act in carrying out the directions given by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in writ petition being M.P‘.No. 275 of 1982 in the case of State of MP. vs. Board of Revenue and others reported in 1983 J.L.J. 206. A copy of the aforesaid reported judgment is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE — PI1 for facility of reference.” (2) The background facts of the case, in brief, are as follows 1 One Hariprasad Naik was proprietor of village Shivpuri in Raigarh District. The proprietary rights were abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 (for short “1950 Act”) with effect from 31-03-1951 which was the date of vesting under the said Act. The consequences of vesting are given in Section 4 of the 1950 Act and as per which the land covered under the 1950 Act vests in the State free from all encumbrances, all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in the land of a proprietary village including grass land, scrub jungle, forest etc. Under the 1950 Act, the following lands were allotted in Bhoomiswami rights to the eX-proprietor Hariprasad Naik, his wife and his other relations in the family and the details are as follows : (i) Hariprasad Naik, Khasra No.12, area 496.76 acres; (ii) Krishna Kumar (wife’s sistef‘tot; Hariprasad), Khasra Nos.30 and 39, area 183.32 acres; (iii) Sitarani, w/o Hariprasad, Khasra Nos.26, 27 and 28 area 245.00 acres and (iv) Tarlika Kumari, d/o Krishna Kumari, Khasra No.11, area 76.73 acres. f if] 6 - (3) After coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short “1960 Act“), four ceiling cases were initiated in respect of the aforesaid holders. The ceiling case in respect of Hariprasad Naik was Case No.178/8/90—B/63/64. The Competent Authority by order dated 19-07-1972 held that the holder was entitled to retain only 90 acres and declared 406.76 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of the holding of Krishna Kumari was Case No.4/A- 90-B/1969-70. The Competent Authority by order dated 06—07-1972 allowed the holder to retain 105 acres of land and declared 78.32 acres as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of Sitarani was Case No.3/A—90- 8/1969—70. ln this, the Competent Authority was allowed Sitarani to retain 75 acres of land and 170 acres were declared as surplus. The ceiling case in respect of Tarlika Kumari was Case No.1/A—90—B/1969—70. The Competent Authority vide its order dated 07-07-1972 allowed her to retain an area of 76.73 acres. The orders of the Competent Authority in the aforesaid ceiling cases were affirmed in the appeals filed by the holders to the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The co‘nsequence/ result of the aforesaid ceiling cases could be summarized, for the sake of (4) Whenthe matter stood thus, Hariprasad Naik and his relatives aforesaid transferred their holdings by four sale—deeds executed on convenience, as follows: - Holder Land allowed to Surplus be retained declared Hariprasad Naik ,' 90 acres 406.76 acres Krishna Kumari 105 acres 78.32 acres Sitarani 75 acres 170.00 acres Tarlika Kumari 76.73 acres ‘ i‘ N I L 7 . 17-01—1967 in favour of one Mamanchand and his family \ members/relations. The details of these transfers are as follows : (i) Hariprasad Naik sold for Rs.14,000 the entire 496.76 acres of land to Shambhu Ram, Narsinghdas both sons of Mamanchand and Shakuntala Devi d/o Mamanchand; (ii) Krishna Kumari sold for Rs,6,000 the entire 183.32 acres to Anand Kumar, minor son of Mamanchand and Ushabai, minor daughter of Mamanchand; (iii) Sitarani sold for Rs.7,000 the entire 245.00 acres of land to Smt. Kamlabai, w/o Mamanchand and Bhagwatibai, d/o Mamanchand; (iv) Tarlika Kumari sold for Rs.3,000 the entire 76.73 acres to Mamanchand; and (v) Mamanchand in his turn transferred 35 acres of land out of 76.73 acres purchased from Tarlika Kumari to his son—in—law Sajankumar (husband of Shakuntala Devi). (5) The purchasers on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds applied for mutation. The Tahsildar by order dated 12—04-1967 rejected the applications for mutation on the ground that the transfers violated Sections 5 and 7 of the 1960 Act and Section 165(4) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code"). The appeals by the purchasers were dismissed by the Collector. Further appeals to the Commissioner were also dismissed on 19—1 0—1 969. (6) The 1960 Act was drastically amended by two Acts, Act No.12 of 1974 and Act No.13 of 1974, which came into force on 07-03—1974. By these amendments the ceiling limit was reduced and certain exemptions were withdrawn. Three fresh ceiling cases after these § amendments were commenced before the Competent Authority. The first case is Case No.16/A-90-B/1974—75 (State vs. Shambhuram, Narsingdas and Shakuntala). This case was instituted on a return purporting to have been c 8 submitted by Hariprasad Naik through one of the purchasers, namely, Shambhuram, in respect cf the entire area of 496.76 acres purchased from Hariprasad Naik for Rs.14,000/- and stating that the earlier ceiling case against him was pending, although it had been decided by order dated 19-07—1972 and an area of 406.76, acres was declared surplus. This case was decided by the Competent Authority on 24-03-1976 and an area of 403.76 acres was declared as surplus. This was slightly modified by the Collector in appeal decided on 02—09-1976 and 412.76 acres were declared as surplus. The second ceiling case is Case No.18—A/90-B/74— 75 (State v. Mamanchand). This case covered the land purchased by Mamanchand from Tarlika Kumari in the names of his minor children and in his name from Krishna Kumar minus 35 acres of land which he transferred in favour of his son—in-law Sajankumar. By order of the Competent Authority dated 20-03—1976 as modified in appeal Mamanchand was allowed to retain 63 acres for himself and his minor children constituting the family unit and 83.73 acres were declared surplus. ln the third ceiling case against Sajankumar decided by the Competent Authority on 07-01—1976, five acres were declared as surplus and Sajankumar was allowed to retain 3O acres. The result of these ceiling cases is as' follows: — Ceiling Case ‘ surplus retained 412.76 acres 16/A—90(B)74—75 54 acres to k ‘~ x Shambhuram S/o Mamanchand. 3O acres to Shakuntala dlo Mamanchand. 9 18/A-90(B)74-75 63 acres to 83.73 acres Mamanchand as representing the family unit consisting of himself and four minor children. 5 acres 766-A-90(B)74-75 3O acres to Sajan Kumar son-in-Iaw of Mamanchand (7) In ceiling case No.16/A-90—B/74-75, the Competent Authority allowed Rs.8,255.20 as compensation for the surplus land. Similarly‘ in ceiling case No.18/A-90uB/74—75, the Competent Authority allowed Rs.1 ,674.60 as compensation and in ceiling case No.766—A—90—B/7—75, the Competent Authority allowed Rs.1OOI— as compensation for the land declared to be surplus. Applications were filed on 06-04-1977 for additional compensation for trees in accordance with Section 16 (2) as amended by Act No.13 of 1974 and Rule 3—A of the Rules made under that provision. The Tahsildar counted 3,11,246 trees in the first case, 43,972 in the second case and 4,818 in the third case. On this basis, the Competent Authority by three orders passed on 04-12—1979 allowed Rs.32,26,688/— as compensation for trees in the first case (No.16/A—90— B/74-75) to Shambhuram, Narsinghdas, sons of Mamanchand, and Shakuntala D/o Mamanchand ; Rs.4,44,776/— in the second case (No.18—A (B)/74-75) to Mamanchand and Rs.49,679/- in the‘third case (No.766—A— 90(B)/74—75) to Sajankumar. These persons not being satisfied even with more than R5337 lakhs as compensation filed three appeals before the Collector which were dismissed by three orders dated 31-03—1980. Thereafter, three revisions were filed by these persons before the Board of 10 gar Revenue which by order dated 14—08—1981 allowed the revisions and remanded the cases to the Competent Authority for recalcutating the additional compensation payable in respect of trees with certain directions‘ These directions are that Mahua, Char, Jamun, Tendu and Awala trees be treated as fruit bearing trees for purposes of compensation and even bamboo and bushes should be counted as trees. (8) Mamanchand, Shambhuram, Narsinghdas, Shakuntala and Sajankumar not being satisfied with the direction of the Board of Revenue filed Misc. Petition No.1051 of 1981 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for awarding the market value of the trees as compensation and also for a declaration that Rule 3~A and Form A-2 are invalid. The State Government contested the claim in Misc. Petition No.1051 of 1981. ln addition, the State Government filed Misc. Petition No.275 of 1982 for challenging the entire proceedings taken in the second set of ceiling cases and for quashing all orders made in them including the orders relating to payment of compensation. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh atlowed Misc. Petition No.275 of 1982 filed by the State Government vide its order dated 04-01-1983 and quashed the entire proceedings and all orders of the Competent Authority in three ceiling cases (Nos.16—A/90-B/74~75; 18-A/90—B/74—75 and 766-A/90—B/74-75) including the orders for payment of compensation, additional compensation and all‘ orders passed in appeal and revisions arising out of those cases including the orders of thegBo‘ard of Revenue dated 14—08-1981. While doing so, the Division Bench was pleased to observe that “it would be open to the Competent Authority to take fresh proceedings in respect of [ands covered by these cases against Hariprasad Naik, Krishna Kumari and Tarlika Kumari but only to the extent 11’ @‘ of the lands which are not declared surplus in the first set of ceiling cases against these persons”. (9) Furthermore, the Division Bench while meeting an argument that as the lands were mostly covered by the forest, they did not fall within the 1960 Act, was pleased to observe in para 2O of the certified copy of the order thus:- “During the course of arguments, it was also hinted that as the lands were mostly covered by forest they did not fall within the Ceiling Act. ln our opinion, that is not the correct legal position. The lands though covered by forest were held by Naik and his relations in Bhumiswami rights for agricultural purposes. The lands, therefore, came within the definition of land in section 2 (k). It is another matter that these lands should not have been settled with Naik and his relations under the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. We have already said that forest land could not be described as home-farm and could not be settled with the proprietor. However, the fact remains that Naik and his relations somehow got these lands settled in Bhumiswami rights and it is now too late to undo that mischief. There is also no prayer in the petition filed by the State to cancel the settlement made in favour of Naik and his relations who are also not parties to these petitions.” (10) At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that the above order of the Division Bench is reported in 1983 JLJ 206 and Alli 1983 MP 111. In the JLJ and AIR the word ‘now’ occurring in para 20 of the order has been wrongly substituted by the word ‘not’. Since the entire claim of the petitioners is based on the purported observation of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that ’it is not too late to undo that mischief’, and 12 actualiy the Division Bench did not make such observation in para 20, Respondents No.15, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 22 with their aitional return dated dd 18-04-2006 have produced the cenified copy of the order passed in Misc. Petition No.275 of 1982 to show that the Division Bench has observed that “it is now too late to undo that mischief” and what is reported in JLJ and AIR in that regard is incorrect. In the course of the arguments, it is fairly agreed by all the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the A, oi reporters of the order wrongly substituted the word ‘not‘ in the place of the word ’now’. (1 1) The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: — “(A) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue calling upon the Respondents 1 and 2 to carry out the directions contained in para 21 of the reported judgment Annexure P/1 in letter and spirit. (B) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue calling upon the Collector Raigarh to take charge of the entire area of 1001.81 acres of forest land comprised in the ex-proprietary village Shivpuri in accordance with Section 7 of the 1950 Act. (C) A wrlt of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the Respondent No.2 as the Competent Authority to take immediate steps in respect of the entire area of forest land comprised in ex—proprietary village shivpuri in Raigarh District in conformity wfth Section 11—A (1) (b) and (c) of the 1960 Act, (D) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue Calling upon the Respondents 1 and 2 to produce before the Hon'ble Court all the revenue records pertaining to ex-proprietary village Shivpuri for the years 1947—48 to date an also all relevant files for the ) same period whereby large area of 1001.81 acres of‘ vaiuable forest land had been illegaliy settled in bhumi swami rights in favour of the original allottees Naik and the family members/relations so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside and quashing the aforesaid illegal settlements. (E) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue quashing the 13 fraudulent sale deeds Annexure P/2 (Colly) illegally executed by and between Respondents Nos.3 to 14 as the Sellers and Respondent Nos.15 to 24 as the purchasers of the sUrplus land. (F) It be declared that the transactions effect through the 13 fraudulent Deeds of sale Annexure P/2 (Colly) are eX-facie null void and non est in the eyes of law being hit by the provisions of the 1950 Act and the 1960 Act. (G) To order the Central Bureau, of lnvestigation (CBI) to conduct a through probe into the clandestine and fraudulent transactions effected through the 13 Deeds of sale Annexure P/2 (Colly) in order to ferret out the rat in the whole affair and after proper investigation to launch criminal prosecution against the Respondents 3 to 24 and other persons connected with the crime, under 35.406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. (H) To pass such further or necessary order or to give such further or necessary directions with a view to protect the interest of the State Government in respect of 400 acres of forest land as well as forest growth and trees standing thereon as may appear to , the Hon’ble Court just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." The‘ writ petition was opposed by the State of Chhattisgarh & Collector, Raigarh, respondents No.1 & 2, respectively, by filing return. (12) Similarly, the writ petition was contested by respondents No.15, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 22 by filing a separate return dated 25—03—2006 and additional return dated 18—04-2006. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder styled as ‘short rejoinder’ to the return filed by respondents No.1 & 2 dated 22-03-2006. (13) Although, the writ petition runs to as many as 41 full scap typed pages and the socalled brief synopsis to 28 pages, if we may summarise and crystallize the issues that arise from the pleadings of the petitioners, only three issues arise for decision—making and they are: - (i) that the area of 1001 .81 acres situate in Village Shivpuri, District Raigarh belonging to eX-proprietor late Hariprasad Naik have already vested in the State with effect from 31-03—1951 by virtue of operation of the provisions of the 1950 Act and that no portion of the said land could be allotted/settled in the name of late Hariprasad Naik or his relatives; that the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in its order dated 04-01—1983 passed in Misc. Petition No.275 of 1982 is not complied with by the State Government; (iii) that the transfer of about 346.73 acres of land out of 1001.81 acres of land in favour of respondents No.15 to 24 by respondents No.3 to 14 is illegal, because,.the‘e‘stlre 1001.81 acres of land has already vested in the State Goverhment and that sale-deeds have been executed by defrauding the State revenue inasmuch as proper stamp duty has not been paid on the sale—deeds, and that the power of attorney executed by the holders in favour of their attorney is defective inasmuch as the same was not registered. (14) We heard learned ceunsel for the parties for final disposal of the case on 05—09-2006, O6~09—2006 & 07—092006 and after conclusion of the hearing, the order was reserved. (15) Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsei for the petitioner would reiterate and highlight on the same points raised by the petitioner in paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, l, J, K, L, M, N, O, P and Q of the memorandum of the writ petition, and in support of those grounds he would also cite certain decisions touching the merits of the matter and contend that the settlement orders and ceiling orders made under the 1950 Act and 1960 Act were not in accordance with law, and that the subsequent sale transactions entered into by the holders of the land with the purchasers are also ex facie illegal and fraudulent. (16) ln the course of arguments, Shri K.N. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsei