S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) AS all these cases relate to assessment of municipal tax of Deoghar Municipality, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order,
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioners in all the writ application is that Deoghar Municipality has arbitrarily enhanced the municipal tax, as affirmed by the appellate committee in some of the cases. To determine the issue, it is desirable to notice the relevant prayer and facts of the individual cases, as mentioned hereunder : W.P. (C) No. 5014/01 This petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27th January, 1999, whereby, the Deoghar Municipality has increased the municipal tax by revision of assessment with effect from 1.4.1998. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land appertaining to Holding No. 213 (New), Ward No. 12 within Deoghar Municipal Area from one Sri Dhirendra Nath Rai vide sale deed No. 3153 dated 31st December, 1997. He was paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 52.87 p. per quarter. The respondents have revised the assessment and enhanced it to Rs. 1157.50 p. per quarter, without hearing him. Further case of the petitioner is that the objection raised by him against the assessment under Sections 116 and 118 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1922 for short) has not been decided by the authorities as per law. W.P. (C) No. 4493 of 2003 This petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, whereby, he has been asked to pay the municipal tax of Rs. 11,625/ -, k1 the quarterly tax of Rs. 76.50 p. having been enhanced to Rs. 775.00 p. This petitioner has also challenged the earlier notice dated 28th January, 1999 and appellate order dated 28th May, 2002, whereby and whereunder, his appeal has been dismissed. According to the petitioner, he is having a house over Holding No. 78 (New), corresponding to Holding No. 71 (Old) in Ward No. 13 under the Deoghar Municipal Area. In terms of assessment, made by the Municipality, he was regularly paying the Holding tax at the rate of Rs. 76.50 p. per quarter. The Municipality was dissolved under Section 385 of the Act, 1922, vide Notification No. 1202, dated 8th June, 1995. The Municipality after notice dated 28th January, 1999 enhanced the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 775.00 p. quarterly. W.P. (C) No. 5654 of 2001 Petitioners in this case while challenged the appellate orders all dated 30th November, 2000, as contained in Annexure 5 series, have also challenged the demand notices all dated 21st January, 2001, as contained in Annexure 6 series. According to the petitioners, a piece of land measuring 19 katthas and 15 dhurs, appertaining to Municipal Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal Area was held, owned and possessed by petitioner No. 1, namely, Maharaja Pratap Singh. Said petitioner No. 1 transferred his 1/4th share out of the said land to petitioner No. 2 Smt. Pratibha Manjri Devi vide sale deed dated 12th May, 1980, which was carved out as Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal area. Petitioner No. 1 Maharaja Pratap Singh also gifted 1/4th of the undivided share of the said land to petitioner No. 3 Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 12th May, 1980, which was carved out as Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New) within Ward No. 5 of Deoghar Municipal Area. The municipal tax of Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New), within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 105.80 p. annually, which was paid by petitioner No. 1 regularly. The municipal tax of Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 53.20 p. annually which petitioner No. 2 was paying regularly. Similarly the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New), within Ward No. 5 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 53.20 p. annually, which was being paid by petitioner No. 3 regularly. Their grievance is that the Municipality after revision of assessment, enhanced the municipal tax of Holding No. 315 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 334 (New) from Rs. 105.80 p. annually to Rs. 1321.00 p. quarterly with effect from 1.4.1998. Similarly the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/1 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 335 (New) was enhanced from Rs. 53.20 p. annually to Rs. 528.75 p. quarterly whereas the municipal tax of Holding No. 315/2 (Old), corresponding to Holding No. 336 (New) within Ward No. 5 was enhanced from Rs. 53.20 p. annually to Rs. 352.50 p. quarterly. The appeal(s), preferred by the petitioners has/have also been rejected by the appellate committee without following the procedures prescribed under Chapter IV of the Act, 1922 vide orders all dated 30th November, 2000. W.P. (C) No. 68 of 2002 Petitioner in the present case has challenged, the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000 whereby he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 9240.80 p. as municipal tax as arrears for the period 1999 -2000 and the first quarter of the year 2000 -2001. According to the petitioner, the building in question was originally recorded in the name of one Kanai Lal Chakravarty, which was inherited by the petitioner along with his two brothers, namely, Pradeep Chakravarty and Sandip Chakravarty. The ground floor of the house has been rented out to the tenants at the rate of Rs. 525/ -per month. The first floor is kept under lock and key as the petitioner and his brothers occasionally visit Deoghar. The municipal tax of the premises was initially assessed at the rate of Rs. 205.60 p. per year, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 211.60 p. annually i.e. Rs. 52.90 p. quarterly. The grievance of the petitioner is that the municipal tax of one part out of the four parts of the premises has been enhanced arbitrarily by the respondents from Rs. 51.50 p. quarterly to Rs. 110.80 -p. quarterly. However, in respect to other parts it has been enhanced 24 times. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 24th April, 1999. Subsequently, the impugned demand notice has been issued on 13th November, 2000. Though the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000, he has not challenged either the original order of assessment or the appellate order and a vague pleading has been made by him. W.P. (C) No. 426 of 2001 This petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate committee dated 24th April. 1989 and the demand notice dated 13th October, 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellate committee has rejected the appeal and the Municipality has issued the impugned demand notice for Rs. 3783.80 p. and Rs. 1200.00 p. The case of the petitioner is that the house in question situated within Ward No. 18 of Old Holding Nos. 12 and 13, corresponding to New Holding Nos. 126 and 127, was originally recorded in the name of her father late Brindawan Sharan Mishra. After his death, the petitioner with her sister Ganga Mishra inherited the property. The house constructed over both the Holdings, comprise of two floors having five bed -rooms, two kitchens, three toilets, two bath -rooms and four open verandahs. A new construction has also been made in New Holding No. 127, comprising of one room, two kitchens and three verandahs, which has been let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. Some new construction has also been made on New Holding No. 126, comprising of two shops, which have been let out on rent of Rs. 200/ - per month each. The residential portion of the house is kept under the lock and key, as the petitioner and her sister occasionally stay when they visit Deoghar. Previously the municipal tax of the premises was assessed at the rate of Rs. 92.60 p., which has been enhanced arbitrarily. She having come to know about the same, filed appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate committee vide order dated 18th February, 1999, whereinafter, the demand notice has been issued on 15th January, 2000. In this case also vague pleadings have been made. Neither the details of assessment has been given nor it has been show as to which are the years for which demand notices have been issued. W.P. (C) No. 1307 of 2002 This petitioner though prays for issuance of a writ(s) or direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to why the revised municipal assessment with regard to her Holding No. 346(Old), corresponding to Holding No. 474(New) of Ward No. 9 within Deoghar Municipal Area be not quashed and a fresh assessment as per law be not made, has not challenged the assessment order nor has challenged the appellate order and the demand notice. According to the petitioner, she used to pay municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 105.70 p. per annum, which has been revised and enhanced to Rs. 436.48 p. per quarter, and the demand notice was issued on 30th February, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 9132.20 p., including the arrears for the year 1993 -94 to 1996 -97, though she has paid the municipal tax for the aforesaid period. Her grievance is that the municipal tax, which was originally assessed at Rs. 8.81 p. per quarter has already been raised from time to time and enhanced to Rs. 436.48 p, per quarter. Subsequently it has been enhanced to Rs. 537.90 p. and then to Rs. 616.85 p. per quarter. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate committee, which was rejected. Her further grievance is that the authorities have not yet handed over the appellate order to the petitioner, in spite of requests, made by her husband. , The petitioner has not enclosed any document, relating to assessment of the earlier period except one or other demand notice. The detailed statement has not been made relating to the premises nor it is suggested as to why it was enhanced from one year to another. It is not clear whether the petitioner has extended the constructed portion of her building area or not. W.P. (C) No. 2314 of 2002 Although this petitioner has challenged the appellate order, passed by the appellate committee and the demand notice, he has not enclosed the copy of the appellate order with the writ petition. From one of the enclosures, it appears that though the petitioner requested to supply the copy of the appellate order, it has not been supplied to him. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the house, having Holding No. 27, Ward No. 7, situated within Deoghar Municipality. The said house is a three storied building comprising each floor of 12 ft. x 25 ft., consisting three rooms and two smalls hops. Earlier the holding tax was assessed at the rate of Rs. 28.90 p. quarterly but it has now been raised to Rs. 176.25 p. quarterly and Rs. 705/ -. The valuation of holding has also been raised from Rs. 350/ - to Rs. 2000/ - and the demand was raised accordingly for realization of the holding tax at the new rate. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 11th March, 1999, affirming the order of assessment. W.P. (C) No. 5089 of 2002 Petitioner in this, writ petition has challenged the order, passed by the appellate committee dated 22nd March, 1999, assessment order and the demand notice for the year, 1998 -99. According to the petitioner, he is the holder of property having Holding No. 244 and 273 under Ward No. 7 of Deoghar Municipality. Earlier the holding tax was assessed at the rate of Rs. 93.13 p. and Rs. 372.48 p. annually, which he used to pay. Another assessment of the said holding was made in the year, 1986 -87 when it was assessed to Rs. 1490/ - per annum. It was reduced to Rs. 573.80 p. per annum in pursuance of an order, passed in an appeal, preferred by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have re - assessed the tax of those holdings for the year, 1998 -99 and have raised demand of Rs. 3504.80 p. per annum. W.P. (C) No. 6275 of 2002 The writ petitioner in this case has challenged the order dated 12th September, 2002, passed by the appellate committee, whereby the appellate committee has affirmed the amount, finally assessed, i.e. Rs. 35000/ - for the building, situated over Holding No. 494 of Ward No. 12 under Deoghar Municipality. The annual tax has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 3084.40 p. quarterly. According to the petitioner, he is the legally rightful owner of Holding No. 494, Ward No. 12 and was running the hotel in the name and style of Chetna Hotel. The aforesaid hotel business was closed by him since 1st April, 1998 and since then the premises is lying vacant. He was paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 2983.60 p. per annum, which was increased to Rs. 5287.50 p. quarterly i.e. Rs. 21148/ - per annum. When the petitioner preferred appeal, after hearing the parties, the appellate committee finally assessed the value at Rs. 35,000/ - and brought down the holding tax from Rs. 5287.50 p. to Rs. 3084.40 p. quarterly i.e. Rs. 12,337/ -annually in place of earlier assessment of Rs. 21,148/ -. W.P. (C) No. 6730 of 2002 In this case demand notice dated 16th January, 2002, issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, has been challenged by the petitioner whereby and whereunder, the municipal tax of Rs. 15243.40 p.. including the arrears, has been demanded from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of a building having Holding No. 709/ 388, Ward No. 8 within Deoghar Municipal Area. Earlier the municipal tax used to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 153/ - per annum. The respondents vide notice dated 20th December, 1999 revised the rate and fixed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 793.15 p. per quarter with effect from 1.4.1998, followed by the demand notice dated 16th January, 2002, as referred above. According to the petitioner, the revision of municipal tax, as enhanced, is arbitrary and. against the provisions of the Act. W.P. (C) No. 397 of 2003 In this case, the petitioner has only challenged the decision of the appellate committee dated 12th September, 2002, whereby, the holding tax has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1800/ - per annum. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revised assessment of the holding tax is arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he used to pay tax at the rate of Rs. 35.25 p. per annum which was revised to Rs. 1057.60 p. per annum. On the application, preferred by the petitioner under Sections 116 and 118 of the Act, 1922, the committee heard and fixed it at Rs. 1800/ - per annum, without any basis. W.P. (C) No. 1122 of 2003 Petitioner in this case has challenged the demand notice of holding tax in respect of her house, having Holding No. 274, Ward No. 15, situated with Deoghar Municipal Area. The petitioner was also paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 52.36 p. per quarter, which has been raised to Rs. 174.40 p. per quarter with effect from 1.4.1998 and she has been asked to pay holding tax in the revised rate, including the arrears, amounting to Rs. 2092.80 p. and Rs. 2626.00 p. for different periods, vide Annexure 6 series. W.P. (C) No. 1647 of 2003 This petitioner, who is the owner of a building, situated over Holding No. 178 (Old)/ 194 (New), Ward No. 19 within Deoghar Municipal Area, has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by Deoghar Municipality, whereby, he has been asked to pay holding tax at the rate of Rs. 1366,25 p. per annum, in place of old assessment at the rate of Rs. 114.80 p. per annum. According to the petitioner, the revised enhanced assessment of holding tax is arbitrary, which is twelve times more than the last assessment. W.P. (C) No. 1667 of 2003 The case of this petitioner is also similar. He being the owner of a building having Holding No. 171 (Old)/193(New) Ward No. 13 within Deoghar Municipality, has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003. In his case the holding tax which he used to pay at the rate of Rs. 99.32 p. annually has been revised, enhanced and assessed at the rate of Rs. 871.87 p. per annum, which, according to the petitioner, is nine times more than the last assessment. The decision of the appellate committee has not been challenged in the instant case. W.P. (C) No. 1668 of 2003 The case of the petitioner is that the Deoghar Municipality earlier assessed the holding tax of Holding No. 86/1(Old)/100 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area, at the rate of Rs. 78.50 p. per annum. By the impugned demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, the Deoghar Municipality has demanded holding tax in the revised, enhanced and assessed rate of Rs. 968.75 p. per annum, which is fifteen times more than the last assessment. W.P. (C) No. 1678 of 2003 This case relates to revised assessment of holding tax in respect of a building, having Holding No. 85 (Old)/92 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area. According to the petitioner, as per last assessment he used to pay holding tax @ Rs. 38.30 p. per annum, which has now been enhanced to Rs. 926.25 p. per annum, which is 26 times more than the last assessment. The demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 is under challenge. W.P. (C) No. 1679 of 2003 In the present case, earlier the assessment of the holding tax of the building in question, having Holding No. 176(Old)/l92 (New), Ward No. 13, situated within the Deoghar Municipal Area, was assessed @ Rs. 52,90 p. per annum, which has now been enhanced to Rs. 1541/ - per annum i.e. 24 times more than the last assessment. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the Deoghar Municipality. W.P. (C) No. 1762 of 2003 In this case, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 24th April, 1998, whereby the Deoghar Municipality has asked the petitioner to pay the holding tax @ Rs. 600/ - per annum in respect to Holding No. 61 (old No. 44), Ward No. 6, within Deoghar Municipal Area. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revision of holding tax is arbitrary as it has been raised from Rs. 76.50 p. per quarter to Rs. 600/ - per quarter. W.P; (C) No. 1772 of 2003 The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the respondents, whereby and whereunder, he has been directed to deposit the Municipal Tax of Rs. 17,442/ -on account of holding tax and other taxes for the period 1998 -99, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03, Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to produce the demand notice, whereby the assessment of the petitioners Holding No. 19, situated in Ward No. 13, within Deoghar Municipal Area as been increased from Rs. 46.61 p. quarterly to Rs - 968.25 p. quarterly. According to the petitioner, he owns and possesses a building over the aforesaid Holding No. 19. The revision of Municipal Tax has been made arbitrarily, in violation of different provisions of the Act, 1922. This petitioner has given example of one or other building/house, situated at the adjoining area, to suggest that the assessment of the Municipal Tax of the petitioner is exorbitant, as compared with the assessment of the Municipal Tax made in respect of other buildings situated over the same area. W.P. (C) No. 1774 of 2003 The case of the petitioner is similar to the previous case i.e. W.P. (C) No. 1772 of 2003. In this case the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 whereby the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit the municipal tax of Rs. 23,250/ - for the periods 1998 - 99, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 in respect of Holding No. 17, Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area. He has also challenged the notice of assessment dated 28th January, 1999, whereby the assessment of municipal tax was raised from Rs. 38.20 p. to Rs. 1162.50 p. per quarter. Similar demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 22,282/ - and notice of assessment dated 28th January, 1999 in respect of petitioners house, situated over Holding No. 72, Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal area, is under challenge. In respect of this Holding No. 72 the assessment of municipal tax has been increased from Rs. 52.90 p. per quarter to Rs. 1162.50 p. per quarter. According to the petitioner, the application filed by him under Section 116 of the Act, 1922 has not been decided by the respondents in proper aspect. W.P. (C) No. 1775 of 2003 In this case the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, issued by the respondent Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, whereby, she has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,565/ - as municipal tax for the years 1998 -99, 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 in respect of the premises, having Holding No. 7, situated in Ward No, 13, within Deoghar Municipal Area. She has also challenged the notice of assessment dated 25th January, 1999, whereby, the municipal tax has been re - assessed and enhanced from Rs. 47.85 p. per quarter to Rs. 775/ - per quarter with effect from 1st April, 1998. In this case also the grievance has been made that though the petitioner filed an application under Section 116 of the Act, 1922, it has not been decided by the competent authority. W.P. (C) No. 3204 of 2003 Petitioners Shambhu Prasad and another, not being satisfied with the re - assessment of holding tax, have challenged the notice dated 29th January, 1999 and the decision dated 16th October, 2000, whereby, the appellate committee has finally assessed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 1057.53 p. quarterly with effect from 1st April, 1998. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the premises, having Holding No. 532 within Ward No. 12 of Deoghar Municipal Area and were paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 141/ - per annum till 1997 -98, which was increased on re - assessment to Rs. 1075.12 p. per quarter. On an application, preferred by the petitioners, the appellate committee fixed it at the rate of Rs. 1057.50 p.per quarter. W.P. (C) No. 1954 of 2001 This writ petitioner has been preferred by the petitioner against the notice of assessment of municipal tax dated 28th January, 1999 as also the decision of the appellate committee dated 31st October, 2000. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of the premises having Holding No. 5, situated within Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area, has raised a grievance against the enhancement of municipal tax, enhanced from Rs. 749,10 p. quarterly to Rs. 8788.43 p. per quarter. It appears that the respondents have assessed the holding tax in respect to the holding in question from time to time, initially and it was assessed at the rate of Rs. 642.15 p. quarterly and then re -assessed and enhanced to Rs. 749.10 p. quarterly. When recent assessment was made in the year, 1998 -99 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate committee, which passed the final order on 31st October, 1999. Subsequently, when demand notice was issued, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 784 of 2001. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th February, 2001 directed the appellate committee to hear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated that the appellate committee had already taken decision, which was communicated to him on 17th April, 2001. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the re -assessment is arbitrary and without any basis. W.P. (C) No. 3041 of 2003 In this case, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003, whereby and whereunder, he has been asked to pay a sum of RS. 7,730/ -towards the municipal tax, inclusive of the arrears for the period 1998 -99 to 2001 -02 in respect of the premises having Holding No. 211 (New), situated within Ward No. 13 of Deoghar Municipal Area. The grievance of the petitioner is that the municipal tax, which was earlier fixed at the rate of Rs. 96.53 p. per annum has now been enhanced to Rs. 1550.00 per annum, which is arbitrary and is about 16 times more than last assessed amount. W.P. (C) No. 3060 of 2003 This case relates to the premises, having Holding No. 13 (New)/12(Old), Ward No. 7, situated within Deoghar Municipal Area. Earlier the respondents had assessed the municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 306.00 per annum but since 1998 it has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1162.60 p. per annum. According to the petitioner, the enhancement is four times more than the earlier assessment, on the basis of which demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 has been issued, W.P. (C) No. 2950 of 2003 The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 16th January, 2003 whereby and whereunder, he has been asked to pay the municipal tax at the enhanced re -assessed rate. According to the petitioner, earlier the municipal tax for the premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 92.30 p. per annum, which he was paying regularly but since 1998 it has been enhanced arbitrarily at the rate of Rs. 1889.25 p. According to the petitioner, the enhancement of the municipal tax about 20 times more than the last assessment is not only arbitrary but is also violative of the provisions of law. W.P. (C) No. 3471 of 2002 In this case, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28th February, 1998. According to the petitioner, the respondents have enhanced the municipal tax from Rs. 14.35 p. quarterly to Rs. 135.36 p. quarterly in respect of the premises, having Holding No. 20, situated within Ward No. 2 of Deoghar Municipal Area. Thought the petitioner has filed an application for information but details have not been communicated to -him. W.P. (C) No. 1523 of 2003 Petitioners in this case have challenged the decision of the appellate committee of Deoghar Municipality dated 7th May, 1999, whereby and whereunder, the municipal tax has been finally assessed at the rate of Rs. 23,053.150. The case of the petitioners is that they are running hotel in the name and style of Prabha Hotel Complex and were paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 286.86 p. quarterly but it has been increased to Rs. 23,053.15 p. since 1st April, 1998. The petitioners moved before the appellate committee on 11th March, 1999, which vide its order dated 7th May, 1999 assessed the net value of the hotel as Rs. 2,25,000/ - and raised the tax to Rs. 23,053.15 p.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners while relied on different Sections of the Act, 1922, made following submissions : (i) The respondents have neither given any reasoning nor have shown any basis to assess the tax. (ii) There is no procedure laid down relating to methodology of assessment of holding tax. (iii) The entire exercise, as required to be done under the Act, 1922, has not been followed. (iv) The assessment of fair rent and holding tax has been made by the respondent/its officials while sitting in their office. (v) The index of fair rent areawise, roadwise etc. has not been fixed prior to revision of assessment. (vi) The assessment of municipal tax/holding tax, as made in one or other case, is excessive, unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary.;