Abdul Khaleque Vs.

Court of Settlement and

others, 1991, 20 CLC (HCD)
SATURDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2012 06:02

Supreme Court
High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Present:
Quazi Shafiuddin J
Mainur Reza Chowdhury J
Abdul Khaleque....................... Petitioner.
Vs.
The Court of Settlement and others ……………………..Respondents.
Judgment
October 22, 1991.
Result:
The Rule is made absolute.
Case Referred to-
Mukhtar Ahmed Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 34 DLR 29.
Lawyers Involved:
MI Farooqui with M Saleemullah, Advocates - For the Petitioner.
AY Salehuzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, with Fazlul Haque, Assistant Attorney General - For the
Respondents.
Writ Petition No.516 of 1988.
Judgment
Quazi Shafiuddin J. -This Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the
Memo. bearing Memo. No. 62 Imn/V dated 15.1.1984 (Annexure M) of the Ministry of Home
Affairs (respondent No.3) refusing confirmation of the petitioner as a citizen of Bangladesh and
enlistment of the petitioner's holding No.2-H/6-14, Mirpur Housing Estate, Dhaka in the 'K' list
published on September 23, 1986 in Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary as abandoned property
should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect.
2. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared and have shown cause by filing an affidavit-
in-opposition.
3. The short case of the petitioner is, that the petitioner Abdul Khaleque migrated to the then East
Pakistan on 3.3.1950 from Calcutta, West Bengal, India and settled permanently at Dhaka. The
petitioner applied and obtained the certificate of domicile from the Dist. Magistrate on
30.11.1954. He also expressed his formal allegiance to the Govt. of Bangladesh by swearing an
affidavit before a Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhaka on 4.7.1972. It is also asserted that the petitioner
exercised his right of franchise in the election and referendum so far held in the country. He also
obtained passports as national of Bangladesh on 4.7.1975 and 16.7.85; that the petitioner while
living in the then East Pakistan was allotted a parcel of land by way of a deed of lease which was
duly executed and registered on 14.2.1962 and 27.2.1962 respectively between the then Govt. of
East Pakistan and the petitioner. Thereafter, the possession was duly delivered in favour of
the petitioner and the entire consideration money of the parcel of the demised land and other
taxes were duly paid by the petitioner. The Govt. also issued a clearance certificate to that effect
on 7.4.78. The petitioner asserts that while he was in peaceful possession of the demised holding
in question he was evicted by some miscreants taking advantage of the lawless condition of the
country prevailing in 1972. The petitioner filed an application on 18.5.1972 to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Dhaka for restoration of the holding in question after evicting the unauthorised occupants
therefrom. The Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Officer-in-Charge of Mirpur police station to
evict the unauthorised occupants from the holding. But in spite of his direction, the petitioner
could not get his possession back. It transpired that subsequently the holding in question was
treated as abandoned property. The petitioner made representation to the Govt. to restore him
back the property. He at first made his representation on 1.2.1979 and thereafter on 25.10.1983
for release of the property, but the then Govt. directed him to submit relevant papers in support
of his claim. The petitioner on 25.8.1984 submitted all his relevant papers and documents in
response to memo. dated 2.9.1984 Annexure F. Again he was directed to submit all the papers on
30.11.1985. The petitioner complied the direction by filing the papers and documents in support
of his claim on 14.4.86. In the meantime the Ministry of Works by their Memo dated 29.12.79
requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to determine the national status of the petitioner. The
Ministry of Home Affairs by their letter dated 7th April, 1980 directed the petitioner to fill in a form
attached and to submit the same to the Ministry. The petitioner complied with the direction and
submitted his application in the prescribed form. Then again on asking, the petitioner filed the
original documents of the property, and the domicile certificate and other papers in support of his
claim. But the Ministry of Home Affairs by their memo. dated 28.4.83/5.5.83 informed the
petitioner that he having opted for repatriation to Pakistan through the International Committee of
Red Cross, his prayer could not be acceded to and expressed regret in confirming the citizenship
to the petitioner. He preferred an appeal on 21.12.83; but did not receive any reply from the said
Ministry. While the matter was pending for release, Ordinance No.54 of 1985 came into force
creating an opportunity to the claimants of the abandoned properties to file their claims to the
Court of Settlement. A final list of the abandoned properties was published on September 23rd,
1986 in the official Gazette including the property of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed
an application before the Court of Settlement and the case being Case No.594 of 1987 was
registered, The Govt. did not file any written objection controverting: the statements of the
petitioner before the Court of Settlement although the Govt. of Bangladesh was duly notified. The
Court of Settlement found the petitioner not a national of Bangladesh and dismissed the case and
also refused to release his property.
4. The case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is that the petitioner's house was found abandoned
and his whereabouts was not known and as such, the Govt. took it over as an abandoned
property. Further case of the Respondents is that the petitioner is not a citizen of Bangladesh and
that he has been rightly refused confirmation of his citizenship. It is further case of the
respondent that since the petitioner opted for repatriation to Pakistan his claim to citizenship could
not be entertained. It is further case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the Court of Settlement
has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner, from releasing the property from the list of
abandoned properties.
5. It is argued by Mr. MI. Farooqui, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the judgment and
order of the Court of Settlement is highly erroneous and stands in direct conflict with the
provisions of law, and as such the same is not sustainable in law. He also argued that in
considering the matter relating to abandoned property, the learned Court of Settlement exceeds
its jurisdiction in going to the question of nationality of the petitioner and rejected the prayer for
release of the property in question. It is also argued by the learned Advocate that the option of
the petitioner to be repatriated to Pakistan through the ICRC cannot take away his right as a
national of Bangladesh. It is also argued by the learned Advocate that the Court of Settlement
failed to correctly assess the facts, circumstances and evidence and failed to appreciate the
documents and the papers submitted by the petitioner in their true perspective. It is argued that
the decision of the Court of Settlement in the ultimate analysis does not respond to President's
Order No.16 of 1972 and President's Order No.149 of 1972.
6. There are two parts in the Rule itself, one being Memo. No.IMN/V dated 15.1.84 (Annexure M)
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs refusing confirmation of the petitioner as a citizen of
Bangladesh and the other part relates to the judgment and order dated 19.9.87 Annexure M-2
passed by the Court of Settlement in Case No.594 of 1987 dismissing the application of the
petitioner for release of the property. The letter dated 15.1.84 passed under the signature of the
Senior Scale Section Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs runs as follows:
No.62 Imn/V dated 15.1.84
From: Md. Shahajuddin
Sr. Scale Section Officer,
To,
Mr A. Khaleque Shop No.390, Municipal Corporation, Dhaka.
Sub: Your Appeal application for confirmation of BD citizenship.
Dear Sir,
With reference to your appeal dated 21.12.83 reached at our end on 29.12.1983 I am directed to
inform you that the Govt. of the People's Republic of Bangladesh after due and careful
consideration have not been able to accept it. The decision conveyed to you vide our letter No.923
Imn/5 dated 28.4.83 therefore remains unaltered.
Sd/ Md. Shahajuddin, Sr. Scale Section Officer.
7. The petitioner was directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to fill in a form for confirmation of
his citizenship on the request of the Ministry of Public Works. It is to be borne in mind that as per
mandate of Article 6 of the Constitution, the citizenship of a Bangladeshi shall be determined and
controlled by law enacted in this behalf. President's Order No.149 of 1972 was promulgated in
order to determine the status of a person living in the country.
8. Article 2 of the said President’s Order runs to the following effect:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, on the commencement of this Order, every
person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh;
(i) Who or whose father or grandfather was born in the territories now comprised in Bangladesh
and who was a permanent resident of such territories on the 25th day of March,1971, and
continues to be so resident; or
(ii) Who was a permanent resident of the territories now comprised in Bangladesh on the 25th day
of March, 1971, and continues to be so resident and is not otherwise disqualified for being a
citizen by or under any law for the time being in force:
Provided that if any person is a permanent resident of the territories now comprised in Bangladesh
or his dependent is, in the course of his employment or for the pursuit of his studies, residing in a
country which was at war with, or engaged in military operation against Bangladesh and is being
prevented from returning to Bangladesh, such person or his dependents, shall be deemed to
continue to be resident in Bangladesh."
9. The petitioner's positive case is that he migrated from Calcutta in the year 1950 and settled at
Dhaka and that thereafter he applied for certificate of domicile to the Govt. of the then East
Pakistan and he was duly issued a domicile certificate and he was residing at Dhaka continuously
from the year of 1950. The Govt. of the then East Pakistan allotted to the petitioner a parcel of
land by a deed of registered lease on 27.2.1962 and possession of the said property was also
delivered in his favour. He made structures thereon and continued to live there permanently. He
also paid rent, taxes and the consideration money in full and got a receipt of clearance certificate
on 7.4.79. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was evicted from his holding sometime in the
year of 1972 and he informed the SDO South by a letter for restoration of the property which was
grabbed by some miscreants. The Sub-Divisional Officer in his turn directed the O/C Mirpur Police
station to evict the unauthorised occupants. These basic facts have not been denied by the
respondents in their affidavit by any specific statement. It is also stated by the petitioner that
soon after the liberation of this country in the year of 1972, he swore the affidavit of allegiance to
the Government of Bangladesh before a Magistrate, 1st class and expressed his desire to settle in
Bangladesh permanently.
10. Article 2(ii) of the President's Order No.149 of 1972 clearly states that on the commencement
of the President’s Order every person who was a permanent resident of the territories now
comprised in Bangladesh on 25th day of March, 1971 and continues to be so resident and is not
otherwise disqualified for being a citizen by or under any other law for the time being in force,
(he) will be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh. This Sub-Article (ii) of Article 2 clearly shows
that the petitioner before 25th day of March, 1971 was a resident of Bangladesh and he continued
to be living in the territories now comprised 'Bangladesh' permanently. The domicile certificate
which has been issued by the then Govt. of East Pakistan in favour of the petitioner would go to
show that he was recognised as a national of Bangladesh and was permitted to live in Bangladesh
permanently. This certificate has not been challenged by the respondents at all. Thereafter, the
petitioner in the year of 1962 obtained settlement of a parcel of land by way of a registered deed
of lease and he constructed house thereon and started living fill he was evicted by some
miscreants. This act has not also been specifically denied or challenged by respondents. The
material facts namely, his migration to the then East Pakistan in the year 1950 and of obtaining a
certificate of domicile and thereafter getting his allotment by way of registered deed of lease from
the Government before 250 March, 1971, and the petitioner had been living in the territories now
comprised Bangladesh clearly respond to requirements of sub-clause (ii) of Article 2 of the
President's Order No.149 of 1972, he is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh. The President’s
Order No.149 of 1972 has further under-gone amendment by notification being 'SRO 213-L/81
which contains amongst other things certain amendments.
Article 10A has been inserted which runs as follows:
“10A. Application for confirmation of citizenship.- (1) Any person seeking confirmation of
Citizenship of Bangladesh shall apply to the Government in Form F, in duplicate, and in the
manner as provided in Sub-rule 3,
(2) No applicatio0n shall be considered unless-
(a) it is attested by a First Class, Gazetted Officer or a Notary Public or by the First Secretary or
an Officer of equal status of the Bangladesh Diplomatic Mission concerned, and
(b) the affidavit accompanying the application contains a declaration of allegiance of the applicant
to Bangladesh.
(3) The Government or the Mission or Consulate to which an application has been submitted
under this rule may call for such further information or documents as are not available in, or, as
the case may be, submitted with the application."
The Rule made under the President's Order No.149 of 1972 being SRO 214-L/78 contains certain
Provisions to enable a person to obtain a certificate of citizenship and Rule 3 of the said rules runs
to the following effect:
"Any person seeking citizenship of 8angladesh under clause (2) of Article 213 shall apply to the
Government in Form A, in duplicate, and in the manner hereinafter Provided, namely:
(a) if the applicant is person temporarily residing in Bangladesh, the application shall be submitted
direct to the government, and if the applicant is a Person residing outside Bangladesh, the
application shall be submitted to the Government through the Bangladesh Diplomatic Mission or
Consulate in that country or where there is no Bangladesh Mission or Consulate in that country, to
a Bangladesh Mission or Consulate in the country nearest to that country:
(b) every application shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the statements
made before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary Public and four copies of passport size
photograph of the applicant duly attested by a Class 1 Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate of the first
Class or a Notary Public."
So the abovenoted clause provide for fulfillment of certain conditions which are pre-requisite for
getting a certificate of Citizenship or for confirmation of the same: The one is statement to be
made before a Magistrate, 1st Class on oath expressing allegiance to Bangladesh and secondly,
his application is to be attested by a first class Gazetted Officer or other Officer as indicated in
Article 10A. These two conditions are the prerequisites for confirmation or for getting a certificate
of citizenship. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the petitioner has been living in
Bangladesh or in the territories now formed part of Bangladesh since 1950. Of course, he has
been evicted from his holding some time in 1972 but he did not leave this country and was living
in different parts of Dhaka city. He duly applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer for restoration of his
possession but he althrough was living in Bangladesh and therefore impugned order passed by the
Ministry of Home Affairs intimating that it was not possible for the Government to confirm him as
citizen of Bangladesh as he had opted for migration to Pakistan. This ground namely, option for
migration to Pakistan does not find place in the ground for confirmation of citizenship or granting
citizenship to any person and the same is not at all necessary for confirmation of the citizenship;
rather intention of the applicant to live permanently in Bangladesh and his allegiance to the
Government of Bangladesh have to be expressed by an affidavit before a Magistrate 1st Class.
These two conditions are the conditions precedent for confirmation of Citizenship to any candidate
but the Ministry of Home Affairs without assigning any of these two grounds, incorporated a new
or third ground namely, option for migration to Pakistan and rejected the application of the
petitioner for confirmation of his citizenship. This is contrary to provisions of President's Order
No.149 of 1972 read with rules made thereunder with amendments. We cannot but hold that the
rejecti6n of the prayer of the petitioner for confirmation of his citizenship as expressed by
annexure (J) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their Memo No.723-Imn/V, dated
28.4.83/5.5.83 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. We declare this action of the respondent No.3
to be without any lawful authority.
11. In this connection it may be noted that similar view has been expressed in the case of Mukhtar
Ahmed Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others reported in 34 DLR 29 wherein the petitioner
opted for repatriation to Pakistan and it was held that mere option for migration to Pakistan is not
enough and that cannot take away the citizenship right of the petitioner. It is observed. "The mere
fact that the petitioner filed an application for going over to Pakistan cannot take away his
citizenship, further the citizenship which he acquired long before cannot evaporate and he
continues to be a citizen of this country." So this view as expressed in this case as referred to
above supports the contention of Mr.MI. Farooqui, the learned Advocate who vehemently argued
that mere filing an application for repatriation cannot take away the right of the petitioner as
citizen of Bangladesh.
12. The next point raised by Mr. MI Farooqui is that the judgment and order of the Court of
Settlement is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such the same should be declared to have
been passed without lawful authority. Mr. Farooqui argued that the learned Court of Settlement
has not considered the case of the petitioner in its true perspective and lent support to the case of
the respondents most illegally.
13. It is argued by the learned Deputy Attorney General that the petitioner’s property being
No.2/H/6-14 Mirpur Housing Estate was enlisted as an abandoned property. It appeared in the
Gazette notification as serial No.1203 at page No.9762 (43) in the list of the abandoned property
published on September 23rd 1986. Mr.A.Y. Salehuzzaman, the learned Deputy Attorney-General
argued that the petitioner's holding since found place in the list so notified as an abandoned
property cannot but be treated as abandoned property. The learned Court of Settlement is
perfectly justified in holding that this very publication of the house is the conclusive proof that the
property is an abandoned property.
14. Section 5 of the Ordinance No. LIV of 1985 reads as follows:
"The Government shall, after the 31st day of March, 1986 and before the 30th of April, 1986
publish in the Official Gazette-
(a) a list of buildings the possession of which have been taken as abandoned property under the
President's Order:
(b) a list of buildings in respect of which notice for surrendering or taking possession as
abandoned property under the said Order have been issued:
Provided that no such list shall include any building in respect of which-
(a) any decree or order has been passed at any time before the publication of the list in the
Official Gazette, by any court declaring the building not to be an abandoned property or not to
have vested in the Government under the President's Order or declaring the possession by the
government of the building as an abandoned property under that Order to be illegal or invalid or
directing the Government or any Officer or authority subordinate to it to return, restore or transfer
the building to any person, or
(b) a suit, appeal, application or other legal proceeding is pending before any court immediately
before the date of publication of the list in the official Gazette, in which the vesting in, or
possession of, the Government of the building as abandoned property under the President's Order
has been called in question in any manner whatsoever or any prayer has been made for return,
restoration or transfer of the building by the Government or by any officer or authority
subordinate to it to any person."
15. Mr. MI Farooqui, the learned Advocate, argues that the petitioner's building cannot be
published in the official Gazette as an abandoned property as no notice was served upon him for
surrendering or taking possession as an abandoned property under the President's Order No.16 of
1972. Mr. Farooqui further submits that the respondents Government have never taken possession
of the building in question as an abandoned property under the President's Order and thirdly, he
had already made a prayer before the respondents for release of the property in question and
althrough was vying to get the same released. He points out that in the year of 1972 while he was
evicted by some miscreants from his holding, he informed the SDO (annexure 'C' to the petition)
to restore the house in his possession and in turn the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the
Officer-in-Charge Mirpur PS to evict the unauthorised occupants from the house (Annexure C (1)
to the petition) and further that the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the authority under the law to
determine whether the property is an abandoned property or not, he, being satisfied that the
property is not an abandoned property directed the Officer-in-Charge Mirpur PS for restoration of
the property in favour of the applicant. Mr. Farooqui argues that the property now published in the
official Gazette as an abandoned property has been done malafide and with ulterior

motive. The presumptive value of section 5 (2) of 5 that the properties which are published in the
official Gazette would conclusively prove that these are abandoned properties provided the
properties answer to the requirements as enumerated in section 5 of the Ordinance No.54/85 as
quoted above.
16. Requirements of Section 5 of the Ordinance if fulfilled qualify the properties to be entered in
the list of abandoned properties to be published in the Gazette notification. If the criteria as set
forth in section 5 are not fulfilled in regard to any property, in that case, that property cannot be
enlisted in the list to be gazette notified. Even if any property which is not qualified to be enlisted
but in fact is listed wrongly, such property is liable to be excluded from the list. The provision of
section 5 will also act as a bar to enlistment of properties in relation to which any decree from a
competent court is passed declaring the property as not abandoned property or not to have
vested in the Government or declaring the Government's possession illegal or directing the
Government or any officer to restore the possession to the owner before the publication of the
property in the list of abandoned property in the Gazette. The moment it is found that the
property in question is not qualified to be enlisted in the list of abandoned properties, the
jurisdiction of the Court of Settlement ceases to operate and the said court will act without
jurisdiction if it lays its hand on such matter.
17. The learned Court of Settlement committed serious illegality in coming to the findings:
"In view of the above facts and circumstances and evidence discussed above we are of opinion
that the petitioner is not a citizen of Bangladesh and his obligation cast upon him under section
5(2) of the Ordinance No. 54 of 1985 has not been discharged to the satisfaction of this Court. As
such he has not been able to prove his case beyond doubts so he cannot get the relief as prayed
for."
18. The learned Court of Settlement found that the petitioner was not a citizen of Bangladesh and
further that in view of the publication of the petitioner's property in official Gazette as an
abandoned property which, according to him conclusively proved that the property in question
was an abandoned property and such onus could not be discharged by the petitioner and as such
he refused to give any relief whatsoever to the petitioners.
19. Mr. AY Salehuzzaman argued that the 1st part of the finding of the Court of Settlement may
be without jurisdiction but the 2nd part is very much within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and as
such the second part may not be declared illegal and void.

20. There can be no doubt that if a Tribunal or a Court acts wholly without jurisdiction, its action
would be a nullity but it does not necessarily follow from this even what it does with jurisdiction
will also be rendered void because the Tribunal or Court has at the same time done something
which was without jurisdiction. If it is possible to separate what has been done without jurisdiction
from that which has been done with jurisdiction without any prejudice to anyone, then what is
done with jurisdiction cannot be invalidated or declared null and void. But if the actions done with
jurisdiction and without jurisdiction are so inextricably mixed up, and action done with jurisdiction
cannot be separated without causing prejudice to either party, then the whole action may be
declared null and void.
21. It is to be borne in mind that the Court of Settlement is not vested with the power to
determine the status of a citizen. All that he is empowered under the provisions o f Ord. 54/85 he
is to examine whether any property as published in the official Gazette under section 5(1) of
Ordinance No.54 of 1985 to be abandoned property or not. He, however, is not vested with the
power to determine the status of nationality of any person. The Court of Settlement took this point
as a ground for refusal to give relief to the petitioner together with publication of the petitioner's
property in the official Gazette which, according to him, is the conclusive proof that the property is
an abandoned property. But the second part namely dealing with the abandoned property might be
well within his jurisdiction if he had acted well within the bounds of law. The Court of Settlement did
not examine the prerequisites of enlistment of the property in the Gazette Notification and did not
get itself satisfied whether die property was an abandoned property under Article 2 of PO 16/72 and
whether the requirements of Ordinance No.54/85 have been at all fulfilled. Therefore, his decision is
bound to be without jurisdiction. The Court of Settlement is competent to deal with those cases
where it is clearly found that the property in question is an abandoned property and it answers to
the definitive clause of PO 16/72. The process of serving the notice of surrender upon the occupant,
to take over possession upon enquiry or investigation, forming opinion whether the property is an
abandoned property or not and in the final stage upon such formation of opinion taking over the
property and to be continued in such possession, till enlisting the property in the list of abandoned
property. If these processes are exhausted, then the property can qualify to be enlisted as an
abandoned property and the same may be Gazette notified under Ordinance No.54/85. Upon
fulfillment of these conditions the presumption under section 5(2) of the Ordinance could become
conclusive that the property is an abandoned property. The Court of Settlement has acted without
jurisdiction in not following the mandate of law and has over-stepped in brushing aside the positive
facts that could disprove that the property is an abandoned property. That he is the rightful owner of
the property, the Sub-Divisional Officer accepted him as such that he was found to be in Bangladesh
althrough and this has been very much proved by the documentary evidence, such as, his domicile
certificate issued by the competent authority of thethen East Pakistan, an affidavit sworn by the
petitioner before a Magistrate, 1st Class expressing allegiance to Bangladesh, the allotment of a
parcel of land by the then Government in his favour in the year 1961 and a
clearance certificate issued by the Government that he paid rents and taxes. These were not
considered by the Court of Settlement. Non-consideration of facts of vital nature touching on
merit of the case renders the decision illegal and void.
22. Lastly, the petitioner is fortified with two other documents, namely two passports were issued
in his favour in the year 1975 and in the year 1984 and also the petitioner's name appeared in the
voters list and these documents and papers prima facie show that he is a national of
Bangladesh. Therefore by mere option for migration to Pakistan cannot take away his right of
citizenship as well as his right to property which has been guaranteed under Article 42 of the
Constitution. In that view of the matter, we find that the Memo bearing No.62 Imn/V dated
15.1.84 (Annexure-M) of the Ministry of Home Affairs refusing confirmation of the petitioner as a
citizen of Bangladesh and the enlistment of petitioner's holding No.2-H/6-14, Mirpur Housing
Estate, Dhaka published in the official Gazette on September 23,1986 in the Bangladesh Gazette
(Extraordinary) as an abandoned property and the judgment and order dated 19.9.1987 passed
by the Court of Settlement (Annexure M-2) are hereby declared to have been passed without
lawful authority and the same are of no legal effect.
In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.
Ed.
This Case is also Reported in: 44 DLR (HCD) (1992) 273.