Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/17 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 16 September, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010051372025




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:12711

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1439/2025

            JAWAHAR PURBEY,
            SON OF RAMBLESWAR PURBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ULUBARI
            (BIRUBARI), DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MOUZA- ULUBARI, POLICE
            STATION- PALTAN BAZAR, DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. PIN-781008.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
            GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHTI-
            781006.

            2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP METRO
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-781036
            ASSAM

            3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
             LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH
             HENGRABARI
             GUWAHATI-781036
            ASSAM

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
             GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
             GHY-781001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. T DEURI, MR. M J BHATTACHARYYA,MS A DAS,MS. L
WANGSA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE
                                                       Page No.# 2/17




Linked Case : WP(C)/1533/2025

BINOD KUMAR VERMA
S/O HIRALAL VERMA
R/O VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI)
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MOUZA- ULUBARI
P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM


VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
 KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
 GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM

3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M) (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
ASSAM

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
ASSAM
------------

Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB Advocate for : SC REVENUE appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

Page No.# 3/17

Linked Case : WP(C)/2146/2025

RAMKRISHNA SAH S/O- MAHINDER SAH R/O- VILL- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI) DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR MOUZA- ULUBARI P.S.- PALTANBAZAR DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781008.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 ASSAM

3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 ASSAM

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE GUWAHATI-781001.

------------

Advocate for : MR. T DEURI Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/1502/2025 Page No.# 4/17

BAGEDU KEWAT S/O- LATE BHIKSHA KEWAT R/O- VILL.- ULUBARI (BIRUBARI) DR. B.R. AMEDKAR NAGAR MOUZA- ULUBARI P.S. PALTANBAZAR DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 ASSAM

3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) (LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH) HENGRABARI GHY-781036.

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM

------------

Advocate for : MD. A MATLIB Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS Page No.# 5/17

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date of Hearing & judgment : 16.09.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Mr. T. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 1439/2025 and WP(C)2146/2025 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)1502/2025 and WP(C)1533/2025. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. Challenge made in these writ petitions is to the Notices dated 05.03.2025 issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, Guwahati, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to remove their

illegal encroachment by providing a grace period to vacate on 6 th and 7th of March, 2025 in continuation with the previous notices based on the order dated 07.11.2024, passed in WP(C)3715/2020 and other batch of writ petitions.

3. Having considered that issues involved in these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, same are heard and disposed by this common judgment and order.

4. Briefly put, the cases are that the petitioners claim to be the permanent residents of village Ulubari (Birubari), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Nagar, Mouza-Ulubari, in the District of Kamrup (M), Assam and landless Page No.# 6/17

persons are in occupation of a small portion of land measuring 7.5, 10, 10 & 11 Lessas each covered by Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N) and have been residing on the said plots by constructing Assam type dwelling houses since 25 to 35 years. The petitioners had submitted applications on many occasions for settlement of the said land in their favour. The petitioners also claim that they have paid land revenue and GMC tax as well as electricity charges.

5. The petitioners had approached this Court against the Eviction Notices dated 07.01.2020 and 10.11.2022 by way of writ petitions, which was disposed of on 07.11.2024 by this Court along with other similar batch of writ petitions, wherein, the petitioners were given a liberty to submit individual replies substantiating with documents by showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of rights in respect of the land under their occupation, within a period of 30 (thirty) days.

6. The petitioners could not file their applications as allowed by this Court on the ground, inter alia, that they were suffering from certain illnesses. However, it is contended, that after the expiry of 30 (thirty) days period, they have submitted their respective representations on 11.02.2025 detailing their entitlement to be settled with the land under their possession. The respondent authorities issued the impugned Notices dated 05.03.2025, whereby, referring to the earlier notices, directed the

petitioners to vacate the land by 6 th and 7th of March, 2025, failing which eviction proceedings were to be carried out. Hence, these present writ petitions.

7. Mr. T. Deori and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsels for the petitioners, Page No.# 7/17

submit that the petitioners are indigenous persons, who have to reside in the city of Guwahati for their livelihood and are not able to purchase any land. They have submitted that since the petitioners are in occupation of their respective plots of land over the Government land being Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N) and being the indigenous, have the right to be settled with the land in terms of the Land Policy-2019 and their rights are traceable under Section 12 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter referred to as the 1886 Regulation), wherein, it is provided that in case of any land over which no person has the right of a proprietor, land holder or settlement holder, the State Government may make Rules to provide for, inter alia, disposal by way of grant, lease or otherwise of such land.

8. The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12 of the 1886 Regulation, a Rule has been framed. As per Rule 13 (A), the State Government may by general or special order, direct that whenever a periodic lease is granted, it shall be subject to the payment of premium such rate as may be fixed by the State Government. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Clause 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 of the Land Policy-2019, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for settlement with the land.

9. The Learned counsels for the petitioners having submitted above, fairly contend that the petitioners did not submit any application before the concerned authority within a period of 30 (thirty) days as directed by this Court, vide order dated 07.11.2024. However, they have submitted their applications after the expiry of the said period with detail for settlement of the land under their possession and occupation, which is yet to be considered by the respondent authorities.

Page No.# 8/17

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners, finally submit that if at all the petitioners are not entitled for settlement with their land as per the Land Policy of 2019 and the other relevant Rules and Act, at least a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider for rehabilitation of the petitioners as the petitioners are landless people and the right to shelter is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

11. Mr. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chameli Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported in 1996 All L.J. 413 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 152.

12. On the other hand, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, submits that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of the Government land covered by Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N). They have already been evicted on 07.03.2025 by the concerned authorities. In compliance of the order dated 07.11.2024, passed in WP(C)No. 3715/2020 and other connected writ petitions, a Notice dated 21.11.2024 was issued to the petitioners to submit their respective representations claiming their bona fide claim of right over the land within 20.12.2024. However, the petitioners have failed to submit their claims within the stipulated time. Therefore, no hearing was conducted and consequently, no speaking order could be passed in respect of the petitioners. The impugned Notices dated 05.03.2025 were issued by providing a final grace period to remove and vacate and on not having been complied with the Notices by the petitioners, they have been evicted Page No.# 9/17

from their respective illegally occupied plots of land.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents by referring to Clause 14.3 of the Land Policy-2019, submits that mere possession of Government Land for a certain period of time in Guwahati City does not guarantee settlement over the land and the settlement is purely the discretion of the State Government. Moreover, the land under Government Dag No. 12 (0)/97(N) of village Ulubari (Birubari), Mousa, Ulubari, under the Guwahati Revenue Circle was reserved for T.B. Hospital and same is being used for construction of Pragjyotishpur Medical College, for which a decision was taken for allotment of the said land for second Medical College in Guwahati, which includes the land allotted to T.B. Hospital along with other land for which Notification dated 11.03.2022 was issued. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be settled with the plots of land in question and there is no scope of any rehabilitation under the Land Policy of the State and other relevant Rules and Acts. As such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials on record.

15. The petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 221/2023, WP(C) No. 7618/2022, WP(C) No. 8308/2022 and WP(C) No. 7953/2022 against the Ejectment Notice under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the 1886 Regulation.

16. This Court, vide order dated 07.11.2024 disposed of the bunch of writ petitions, including the writ petitions of the petitioners. The relevant Page No.# 10/17

paragraph is extracted hereunder:

"...50. Accordingly, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant batch of these writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

(i). The impugned notices under Rule 18 so issued to the petitioners to vacate shall be construed as notices issued by the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle, to show cause why the petitioners should not be evicted by taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules.

(ii). The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are given the liberty to submit individual replies and substantiating the same with documents and such evidence as deemed proper thereby showing cause that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved in respect to the land under their occupation and as such the recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible.

(iii). The liberty given above is to be exercised within 30 (thirty) days, from the date of the instant order. In the said replies, the petitioners herein shall indicate in which writ petition, the petitioner(s) were parties.

(iv). The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either personally or through their authorized representative(s). The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) shall thereupon pass appropriate speaking orders. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) is further directed to allot a particular area in his office wherein, such replies could be submitted. A notice be hanged in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) indicating the area.

(v) This Court further directs that upon the speaking orders being passed, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) shall notify in its notice board about the fact that the speaking order had been passed. For a period of 30 (thirty) days from such notification, no coercive measures be taken so that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they may avail remedies as permissible under law."

17. Perusal of the above order clearly reflects that the petitioners were given a liberty to submit individual replies by substantiating with documents to establish that the petitioners have a bona fide claim of right involved in respect of the plots of land under the occupation of the petitioners and that recourse to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules is not permissible, within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents vide notice dated 21.11.2024 directed the petitioners to submits their respective representations by 20.12.2024.

Page No.# 11/17

However, admittedly, the petitioners have not submitted any representation within the stipulated period but appears that they have subsequently submitted the representations.

18. Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules pertains to settlement of occupied lands not included in any lease which provides that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he is in occupation of a land not included in any lease granted by the State Government either to himself or to any other person, which implies that a discretion for settlement lies with the respondent authorities. Rule 16 which pertains to prohibition to enter into land until issue of lease-provides that lease shall be issued on written application only and no person shall enter into possession of waste land until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise a written permission by a Deputy Commissioner has been granted to him pending issue of such lease, to enter into possession.

19. The Government of Assam in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department has framed a Land Policy-2019. The relevant Clauses are extracted herein below:

"14. SETTLEMENT AND RESERVATION OF LAND IN TOWNS:

14.1. No land within Municipal Corporation or any town constituted under Assam Municipal Act, 1956 or Town Land declared under the Assam Land Revenue Reassessment Act, 1936 or the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 shall be settled for agriculture purpose.

Explanation: Agriculture includes horticulture, arboriculture, pisciculture, piggery, animal husbandry and other ancillary purposes. 14.2. An indigenous person who has no homestead land in his name or in the name of his family in the State may be eligible to get land in Guwahati city or in the urban area, provided that such person is required to reside in Guwahati city or in that urban area by very nature of his occupation/ service, provided further that he has sufficient ground to justify that he has not been able to purchase land in Page No.# 12/17

Guwahati city/other towns.

14.3. The State Government will not consider settlement of any Government land in Guwahati city or in other town areas under possession of individual or other persons merely on the ground that the person concerned is in occupation of such land irrespective of the period of such occupation or encroachment. It would be the policy of the State Government to consider settlement or to evict such persons as the case may be.

14.4. However, in view of the Land Policy, 1989 and other Government decisions prior to adoption of this Land Policy, the cases of indigenous landless persons, if found eligible and who have been under continuous occupation of Government land since or prior to 28th June, 2001 may be considered for settlement of maximum of 1(one) Katha 5(five) Lessa of land in case of Guwahati and 1(one) Katha 10(ten) Lessa in case of other towns as one time measure for homestead purpose, if they apply for it, irrespective of having land in rural areas subject to realization of due premium."

20. Bare reading of the above Clauses shows that an indigenous person who has no homestead land in his name or in the name of his family in the State may be eligible to get land in Guwahati city or in urban area provided that such person is required to reside in Guwahati city or in the urban area by nature of his occupation/service provided further that he has sufficient ground to justify that he has not been able to purchase land in Guwahati city/other towns. It also reflects that the State Government should not consider settlement of any Government land in Guwahati city or other town areas under possession of individuals or other persons merely on the ground that the person concerned is in occupation of such land irrespective of the period of such occupation or encroachment. The discretion to consider settlement or to evict lies with the Government. It further shows that the cases of indigenous landless persons if found eligible and who have been under continuous occupation of Government land since or prior to 28.06.2001, may be considered for settlement if they apply for it subject to realisation of due premium.

Page No.# 13/17

21. On conjoint reading of the provisions of Rules under the Regulations and the Land Policy-2019, it is reflected that an indigenous person who has no homestead land in his name or in the name of the family in the State may be eligible to get land in Guwahati city or in urban area provided such person is required to reside in Guwahati city or other urban areas by nature of his occupation/service and has sufficient ground to justify that he has not been able to purchase land in Guwahati/other towns. It also reflects that consideration for settlement of any government land shall not be made merely on the ground that the person concerned is in occupation of such land irrespective of the period of such occupation or encroachment. However, the cases of indigenous landless person if found eligible and who have been under continuous occupation of Government land since or prior to 28.06.2001 may be considered for settlement of a maximum of 1 khata 5 lessas as one time measure for homestead purpose. At the same time, such settlement, it is reflected would be at the discretion of the authorities.

22. In the present cases, the petitioners, admittedly, have not submitted their individual representation within the stipulated period of time as granted by this Court by an order dated 07.11.2024, who appears to have missed the opportunity for consideration. The petitioners may be landless persons, however, as per the Policy, Rules and the Act, merely being an indigenous landless person would not entitle them to be eligible for settlement of the Government Land under their occupation as the other requirements of bona fide claim as per the Policy and the Rules are required to be shown at an appropriate time. Thus, it would be difficult to conclude that the petitioners are entitled to be settled with the plots of Page No.# 14/17

land in question, which is admittedly a Government land, which has been allotted to the TB Hospital and subsequently, allotted for construction of second Medical College of Guwahati, for which the construction is stated to be under progress.

23. In the case of Chameli Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme court has held and observed, which is reproduced hereunder:

"8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over ones head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under at obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic Page No.# 15/17

human and constitutional rights."

24. In Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (Supra) it has been held, which is reproduced hereunder:

"28. Encroachment of public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and sanitation. Public property needs to be preserved and protected. It is but the duty of the State and local bodies to ensure the same. This would answer the second question. As regards the fourth question, it is to reiterate that judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution. Every citizen has a fundamental right to redress the perceived legal injury through judicial process. The encroachers are no exceptions to that constitutional right to judicial redressal. The constitutional court, therefore, has a constitutional duty as sentinel on the qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he approaches the court for perceived legal injury, provided he establishes that he has a right to remedy. When an encroacher approaches the court, the court is required to examine whether the encroacher had any right and to what extent he would be given protection and relief. In that behalf, it is the salutary duty of the State or the local bodies or any instrumentality to assist the court by placing necessary factual position and legal setting for adjudication and for granting/refusing relief appropriate to the situation. Therefore, the mere fact that the encroachers have approached the court would be no ground to dismiss their cases. The contention of the appellant-corporation that the intervention of the court would give impetus to the encroachers to abuse the judicial process is untenable. As held earlier, if the appellant- corporation or any local body or the State acts with vigilance and prevents encroachment immediately, the need to follow the procedure enshrined as an inbuilt fair procedure would be obviated. But if they allow the encroachers to remain in settled possession sufficiently for a long time, which would be a fact to be established in an appropriate case, necessarily suitable procedure would be required to be adopted to meet the fact- situation and that, therefore, it would be for the respondent concerned and also for the petitioner to establish the respective claims and it is for the court to consider as to what would be the appropriate procedure required to be adopted in the given facts and circumstances.

29. It is true that in all cases it may not be necessary, as a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he should be provided with an alternative accommodation at the expense of the State which if given due credence, is likely to result in abuse of the judicial process. But no absolute principle of universal application would be laid in this behalf. Each case is required to be examined on the given set of facts and appropriate direction or remedy be evolved by the court suitable to the facts of the case. Normally, the court may not, as a rule, direct that the encroachers should be provided with an Page No.# 16/17

alternative accommodation before ejectment when they encroached public properties, but, as stated earlier, each case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate to the facts requires modulation. Considered from this perspective, the apprehensions of the appellant are without force".

25. On perusal of the case laws relied on by the learned counsels for the petitioners, I am of the view that the judgments are clearly distinguishable with the present case as those cases pertains to the acquisition of land and allotment of land as per the schemes of the authorities. It has been observed that normally, the Court may not, as a rule, direct that the encroachers should be provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment when they encroach public properties, but, each case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate to the facts requires modulation and no any specific direction can be given lest it would amount to encouraging the people to abuse the judicial process to avail of such remedy by encroaching public property. The other observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a well established principle of law; therefore, the cases would not come to the aid of the petitioners.

26. Coming back to present cases, having considered above, although, the petitioners would not have an indefeasible right of settlement with the plots of land in question and despite liberty to file applications to establish the bona fide claim by this Court and the respondent authorities, they have failed to submit their representations and complied with the fact that the petitioners appear to have subsequently, submitted their applications being landless persons, who are in occupation of their respective plots of the said Government land, it may be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms and as may be permissible under the relevant Land Policy-2019 and Rules under the Page No.# 17/17

Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

27. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners in terms and as may be permissible under the Land Policy-2019 and Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. It is directed accordingly and the consideration be made within 2 (two) months from today.

28. Writ petitions stand disposed in terms above. Cost(s) made easy.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant