The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 07.08.2024 in WP.No.2'1502 of 2024 and dismiss the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRINIVAS REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI A.MUNEENDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.21502 OF 2024 ORDER: I{eard Mr. S. Srinivas Reddv, leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr. A. Muneendhar Reddy, leamcd counscl lor the pctitioner and Mr. L. Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader lbr Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 6 CASE OF THE PETITIONERS

2. The lather ol the petitioner. late Nagothu Chinnaiah and his brother. late Papaiah. resided in Nagineniprolu Reddvpalem Village. lbr the period liom 1946 to 1958. Prior to 1950, thet removed rvild growth and rocks in the land to an extenl of Acs.05.00 guntas in Survey No.26.2 (New Survey No.262il) of Sarapaka Villagc now in Burgampahad Mandal, Badradri - Kothagudam District and brought tl'rc said land into cultivalion i) In the ycar 1959, they shifted their residcncc to Sarapaka Village. After dcmise of his patemal unclc - Mr. Papaiah. rvho had no issues, his lather alone was cultivating the said land ii) Altcr demise of the father of thc pctitioncr. himself. his thrce (03) brothcrs and tu.o sisters vL., Mr.Nagolhu 'l'hamasaiah, Mr z KI-. J WP No lliol ol 20l1 Nagothu lnnaiah, Mr. Nagothu Balasr,vamv, Ms. I)udota Showrilu (@ 'Sowaramma and Ms. Kommineni Therisa. had been cultivating the said land with dry crops and had been eking out their tivelihood from thc income derived therefrom. On account ol death of wile of elder brother of thc petitioner, his cldcr brother - Nagothu Thamasaiah went into depression and subsequently lctt the housc and his whcrcabouts are not known to them. iii) The name of the lathcr of the petitioner rvas also recorded in revenue records. His fathcr paid Clsl in respecf of the said tand. Even B-Memorandum statements from the years 1964 to 1994 show that his father along with his patemal uncle is in possession of the subject land. iv) During the month ol February, 1984. respondent No.4 ignoring the entries in revenue rccords issued noticc under Section - 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. to thc father of the petitioner herein calling upon him to show causc as to wh1,' he shou ld not be evicted from an extent of Acs.04.00 guntas out of Acs.05.00 guntas. After satisfuing with record produccd by thc l'ather of the pctitioner in respecL of titlc as well as possession and the survey conducted. 3 KT,. J $;l'No ll-01ol l(rlr rcspondent No-,l had issucd a Certificate baring No.A/433/1984, datcd

19.03. 1984. [r view of the same, the fathe r of the petir.ioner and his brolher arc in possession and enjoyment ol the said land liom at least 1964 though no1 1950 r') In thc lear 2009, the Assistant Dircctor, Sun'e1'and [-and Records. Khamrnam, conducted survey of the said land. As pcr the said sun,er'. thc said land was shown to be located in Sur'".ev No.l6li2. which is cvident from the letter datcd 27 ll20ll ol' rcspondent No..l. \ i) [ he rcafter, rcspondent No.2 issued a mcmo in Rc No.L,3,'3 13412014. dated 30.10.2015 informing the lathcr of rhe petitioncr that according to the Regional Dcputy Director an extenL of Acs-0,1.07 suntas of land in Survey No.262ll is Govemnrent land and that respondcnt No.4 had taken possession of the said land. In vier.v of the samc. thc rcquest made by the father of the petitionel for handing o\cr the said land was rejected. Questioning the same. thc fathcr of thc petitioncr llled a writ pctition vide W.P. No.1052 of 2016. During pcndencl, ol tl.rc said writ petition, the father of thc petitioner died on

28.01.201(r. Ihe pctitioncr herein, his brothers and sisters were 4 KL. J l\P No]ltOl o1-10-]l brought on record as his legal heirs. Thcrealter, thc1, withdrcw. the laid writ petition and filed a fresh r.vrit petition vide W.p. No. 14066 of 2016, which was also withdrawn later. Again they tiled another writ petition vide W.P. No.l662 of 2019 bclbre this Courr challenging the memo dated 30.10.2015. This Court allowed the said writ petition on merits vde order dated 30. 10.2023 directing rhe respondenr.s therein to reconsider the case of the petitioncr hercin lor handover the possession of land to an cxtent ol Acs.0,1.07 guntas (rvhich is hcreinafter referred to as 'subject land') and pass a reasoned ordcr. vii) Pursuant to the said order dated 30.10.2023. on consideration of material, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order in Rc.No.E3/313412014, dated 07.05.2024 rejecting the rcquest made by the petitioner herein for handing over the possession of thc subject land. Challenging the same, thc pctitioner filed thc present writ petition contending as follows: a) Respondent No.2 did not consider G.O.Ms.No.97l, dated 01 .10.1969 . ) KI-, J \\'P No:1502 of202 r b) [ [e also misconstrued the -iudgment of this Court in P' (iangamma v. Vashudha Misrar stating that this Courl quashed the said G.O.Ms.No.971. c) Andhra l'radesh Land Transfer Regulation I ol 1970 came into li,rcc tr .e f-. 03.02.1970, whereas this Courl quashed the afirrcs.rid G.O. subsequent to enforccment of the said llceu lrtion I of 1970. d ) I his (- oufl and thc Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically hcld thaL thc said Regulation 1 of 1970 is prospcctivc in naturc. and transaction/possess ion prior to 03.02.1970 shall not be all'ected by thc said Regulation 1 of 1970 or suhsc,qucnt Regulations. Thus, the said judgment has no app lication to G.O.Ms.No.97l. c) Respondent No.2 did not consider the contentions ol the petitioncr properly. nor gave an opportunity before passing impugncd order Wilh thc atbrcsaid submissions. leamcd senior counsel sought to set aside the impug ned order r 998 (2) Ii ^t.D 6 KLJ Wl, No l!iol ofl0:4 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT S:

3. Whereas, respondent No.2 filed countcr alfidavit denying the claim of the pctitioner contending as follows: i) Respondent No.2 had issucd notices dated 14.12.2023 to the petitioncrs in W.P. No. I 662 of 20 l9 and final norices dated 27 .03.2024. Out of six petitioncrs, only five petitioners responded [o the said notices and attendcd to its office. Personal hearings r.r,ere also conducted on

29.02.2023 and 03.04.20024. ii) The petitioners filed some documcnts and matcrial papers. The same were verified and arguments werc hcard in detail. After veri$,ing revenue records. Scthwar along with report of the Tahsildar, Burgampahad and Survey Report of the Assistant Director, the Regional Deputy Director of Survey Department and other concemed Officers and on verifying the settled law, he camc to the conclusion that the petitioncrs therein are not entitled for handing over the possession of thc sub-iect t7 1 KL. ] u P No 21i02 ol 201] lanc and accordingty passed the order dated 07 -05.2024 Thus. thc said order is bascd on sound reasoning iii) Thc petitioncr has no right over the subject property as thc samc is a Govemment [and. i") Thc petitioner belongs to Non-Tribe Comrnunity and, therctiirc. hc is not etigible lor assignment of (iovemment Iand as the sub.ject land is situated rn Schcdulcd Arca r,) -[ he assignment to Non-Tribals in Schedulcd Arca is proiribitcd untier thc Ielangana Scheduled Areas f.and Transl'er Regulation, 1959 as mended by Regulation I of

1910. vi) 'Ihc subicct property was cncroached 30 years back by I'fCl BPI- and possession of thc same was taken over by the Clovcrnment in terms of common order in W.P. Nos.2{)2i9 ol 2012. 6316 of 2010 and C.C. No.859 of 201 3 "F.??F \ -L. 8 KL, J WP No 21502 olt0tJ vii) 'l'he possession of subject land was taken over by the Govemment from ITC BpL under cover of panchanama dared 09. 10.2015. viii) At prcsent, the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land. Thus, he is not entitled for any benetit_ under (i.O.Ms.No.971. With the alirresaid submissions, learned Assistant Govcmmcnt ['leadcr sought tt, dismiss thc writ petition. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

4. [n vicrv of the aforcsaid rival submissions, the main contention ol the petitioner is that his father had been in possession and eniol ntenl of thc land i.e., Acs.05.00 guntas in Survcy No.262 (ncu' Survcv No.262l1) of Sarapaka Village, during his life time. While so. takinq advantage of his father,s absence, ITC BpL startccl parking hcavv vchicles over an extent of Acs.04.07 guntas of land out of Acs.05.00 guntas. When the petitioncr,s father tried to fence around the said land, respondent Nos.4 and 7 prevented him fiom doing so. Therefbre. he filed a q,rit petition vide .$r.p. No.6j 16 ol 2010 and got interim order. During subsistence of Lhe said interim ^l q KI,, J \\'P No 11502 ol20l.l order, respondent Nos.i and 'l havc issued notice dated 22'06'2012 to ITC BPL under Section - 7 o1'thc Act. 1905. Challengirrg the same, ITC BPL filed a s'rit petition uile W.P. No-202i9 of 11012 against respondent Nos.3 and 4 supprcssing the I'actum of liting ol writ petition b1, the lather ol the petitioncr. -fherefbre, the father of the petitioner was impleaded in the said rvrit pctition. When the ITC BPL in collusion rvith respondentN os.-l and 5 removed the l-ence and started parking hcavy vehiclcs in thc sub-icct land. thc lather of the petitioner was constrained to tllc a contcmpt casc vide C.C. No.859 of

5. Perusal of record would reveal that both the alorcsaid writ petitions and C.C. were disposed of b;- this Court by u'a1 of common order dated 28-itO.2014 with thc follorving directions:

1. The District Collector. Khammam (though not a pafiy to this writ petiti,rn. a copy of this ordcr is being marked to him for communication and appropriate action) shall take appropriate steps. as Circcted hereunder and respondcnts 1 and 2 shall. thereaftcr, take up furthcr action it.t accordance lvith larr.

2. The Cotlector shall direct a superior o[ficer ol the Survey and 'l clangana. to appoint an olficer of [,and Records f)epartment, the rank c,1- t)cputy Dircctor of Survel' to conduct survey and t0 KI. J WP No 21501 of202l demarcate the land alicnated to the petitioner company in temrs ol ( j.O. Ms-No. I 56 I Revcnue Department d.ated 26. I I . 197 7 . 3. The Dcputv Director shall also localizc and dernarcate the additional land. ifany,. in possession ofthe petitioner company. 4. Thc Depury l)ireckrr shall also ascertain and localize as to whcther an1. additional land, if any, is the land belonging to the Govr:rnrnent or anr private party including the petitioncr in WI'.No.6316 ol'2010 as per the revenue record. 5- Thc determination and demarcation ol the land on the directions above. ho''rever. shall not amount to determination of titlc ol anv o['thc pallies but shall be only a prcliminary asceftainmcnt of thc prinra ficie tirle of the parties to the additional land, if an).

6. Based on rhe said repo(, the Collector shall direct the Revenue Divisional Of flccr and rhe 'I'ahsildar to take appropriate action in thc rnatter and kr take all necessary steps by duly following thc procedurc in accordancc $,ith lau,.

7. As and uhcrr thc sunc) \ ork is taken up. as per thc directions above, all the partios hercin shall be duly notified apart from an) other person- who rvill bc allected by the survey. 'lhe aforcsaid excrcise shall be completed, preferably, within a period ol sir (6) months lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Collector."

6. Pursuant to the aloresaid dircctions, respondent No.6 Regional Deputv Director. Suruey & Land Records, Hyderabad, conducted survey alier issuing notices to thc parties concerned and / 7 KI,. J VP \o lli(12 oll0:1 alter obtaining connected surue1' rccords t'rom the ofice of the Assistant I)ircctor - rcspondcnt No.j on li-03 20 l5 Thcreaftcr, respondent No.(i submitte<l his rcport to rcspondcnt No 5 along with Survey location sketch. Perusal ol' the said survi:y rcport of respondent No.5 rvould disclose thal an cxtent ol Acs'04'07 guntas vacant additional land has been localizcd (shorvn as 'A' in thc sketch) and the same is under enjoyment of IIC UPI- and is bcing uscd as lorry yard by them. Accordingly. respoudcnt No-6 addrcssed a letter vide Rc.No.AS l34l2}l5, dated 21.05.20 l5 to respondcnt No'2'

7. On rt:ceipt of the said letter. datcd 21.05-2015, respondcnt No.2 addressed a letter datcd 28.08.2015 to respondent No 3 to take further course of action for eviction ol ITCI. RPL tionl encroached tand to the extent of Acs.04.07 guntas bclonging to (iove mment Land in Survey No.26211 of Sarapaka Village by giving reasonable opportunity to thc parties conccmed dull tbllorving thc procedure in accordance u,ith law and requested him as uell as thc 'I'ahsildar, Burgampadu Mandal to submit compliance rcport.

8. On receipt of the said letter. respondent No.:i addressed a letter to respondent No.4 with a direction to take steps lirr eviction of "-ta. I I ...t \ l2 KL. J WP No2l502 of l02l ITC BPt, in respcct ol thc subject land. In pursuance of thc said direction, vide IcLLer datcd 07. 10.2015, respondent No.4 directed the Administrative Officcr. I IC. PSpD, Sarapaka, to take over the excess land of Acs.04.07 gunras in Survcy No.262ll from ITC, pSpD, Sarapaka, under cover c.rl' panchananta and take necessary steps to safeguard the same. I'hcrcaltcr. thc t-ather ol'thc petitioncr hcrein gave a representation date(l 26. I 0.201 5 to respondcnt No.2 with a request to hand over thc sub-ject land.

9. On receipt ol'rhc rcprescntation dated 26.10.2015 submitted by the father of the petitioncr. rcspondent No.2 issued a memo vide Rc.No.E3l3 134 /2014. <larcd i0. I 0.20 I 5 1o rhe farhcr of rhe petitioner informing that rcspondcnt No..l had takcn possession of the subject land in Survey No.262ll and that the same belongs to Govemmcnt and, thereforc, it is not possible to hand over thc possession of subject land to him and accordingll rejected the request made by the petitioner's father. On the same day. respondent No.2 also passed thc order dated 30. 10.201 i to rhc said etl'ect.

10. While so, the tather of the petitioner died on 28.0l.2016. Thegafter, the petitioner, his brothers and two sisters flled a writ ,l -, Kl., ,\ l' \o lliol ot 2021 petition vicle W .P. No.1662 ol 2019 chatlcnging the saicl order dated

30.10.2015 and also the memo <Iated 30.l0'2015 o1'respondcnt No 2' I t. Vide ordet, dated 30.10.2023, this Court allorvcd the said writ pctition setting aside the aforesaid order as r'r'ell as the memo dated 30.10.20i5 directing the respondcnts to rcconsidcr the rcquest made by the petitioner to hand over the possession of tht: sub-icct land dull,consideringtheentirematerialonrccord',vithinaperitldof.thrce weeks from the date of receipt of copy o[ the said ordcr and duly communicate the decision to thc petitioners. 'l'ill complction ol such exercise, the respondents were dirccted to maintain 'tcrtus quo in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.04.07 guntas'

12. Pursuant to the said order, dated 30.10 2021- rcspondcnt No.2 had issued notice daled 14.12.202i to the petitioncrs in thc said writ petition with a <lirection to appear on 29.1)'.2023 br 10 30 A M' with alt relevatrt documents. Respondent No.2 also addresscd a lettcr dated 29.12.2( )23 to respondent No.4 with a requcst to submit a detailed rcport on Survey No.262l1 to an e xtcnt of Acs.()S.055 guntas. Accordingly. respondent No.4 submitted his report datcd 19.02-2024 to respondent No.2. t4 KL, J WP No 21i02 of 2021

13. Perusal of the said report rvould revcal that the father of the petitioner was the resident of Sarapaka Villagc for the period from I946 to 14.12.2007 as is evident from thc residential ccrtificatc dated

14.12.2007. As per rhe posscssion cerrificare datcd 19.03.19g4 issu€d by the then Tahsildar, the lhther ol thc petirioncr r.r,as in possession of the land shown in Survey No.262 [o an extcnt of Acs.05.00 guntas from 1964 onwards. As pcr thc survev conducted bl respondent No.5, the subject Iand is in Sun,ev No.262l2. rvhercas according to the survey conducted by respondent No.6, the same is in Survev No.26211

14. Thereafter, respondent No_2 issued a llnal notice dated

27.03.2024 to the peritionem in w.p.No. t 662 of 2019 with a direction to appear on 03.04.2024 at 3.00 p.M. The petltioner herein also submitted an application 06.04.2021 along *,'ith relcvant documents. such as G.O.Ms.No.971, dated 07. 10.1969 etc.

15. After hearing thc petilioners in W.p. No. 1662 of 2019 and on consideration of the entire material. respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 07 .05 .2024 observing thus I5 t,l J ,\ | \o rlj(tl ol :rr11 i) An extent of Acs.05.00 guntas of land r'vas occupied by Na gothu F-amily in Survey No 262 as per thc cntries firL,nd in B. Memos which is basicalll a record of encroachments in Govcmment lands' ii) I'he tand shown by the petitioner is located in Survcy Nc.262l2, but not in Survey No'262/l as pcr thc rcport -['hc extcnt of given by the Regional Deputy Director' land is only Acs.04.07 guntas, but not Acs 05 00 guntas as alleged by the Petitioner. i ii) On verification of B. Memos, there are certain tatlpcring in the extent under occupation ol thc petitioncr's f-amily' iv) Thus, the contention of the petitioners that thel are in pc,ssession of the land in Survey No.262ll is invalid' v) Regarding possession certificate said to be given b1' thc I'ahsitdar in the year 1984 is not worthl [o lakc into consideration due to the non-availabititv ol'original Irlc' Even as per the Govemmcnt instructions. 'lo poss(-ssion ccrtit-rcate shall be given to the Non-Tribals in thc l6 KL, J IYP No:1502 otlO24 Schedule area without thc appror.al frorn the District Collector on Govemme nt l_and. vD As per the instructions given by the Govcmment ylZe G.O.Ms.No.97l, in thc cases ol. (jov.ernmcnt l_ands, a) persons other than landless_poor shall hc straight aw.ay evicted liom thc lands oocupiecl hl thcml b) I_andless_ poor persons shall not bc evicted liom thc lands under their occupation up to a marinrunt extcnt ol.Acs.2.00 guntas wct, Acs.05.00 guntas ol' dry rlhich timits shall apply inclusive of the dry lands il'any. already owned by the encroachers unless and until such lands are needed for assignment to Tribals; and c) no Iiesh encroachmcnts of .Govemment lands by non-tribals shall he allowed and prompt measures shall bc taken to cvict :rnv such encroachments vii) This Court in P. Gangamma' has quashed the said G.O observing that the State cannot issuc orders in cxercise of its executive power contrary to the Statute- d t/ l7 KI,. J WP No lt ii): ol :l):1 Obsening so. respondent No'2 rejected the claim of the petitioner by rvay of impugncd order dated 07'05 2024'

16. In thc light ol the aforesaid discussion' it is clcar that in pursuance ol the directions given by this Court in the rT'rit petitions and thc contcmpt case mentioned above and also the direction in W P' No.l662ol.]0lg,respondentNo'2passedtheimpugnedorder rejccting the cLaim o[ thc petitioner for handing over the possession o1' the subiect land. The said order was passed by respontlent No 2 onll' after issuing notices to all the parties, hearing them including the petitioner hercin. after obtaining necessary rcports tiom rcspondcnt Nos.4 to 6 and perusing them in proper perspective Furthcr' thc subjcct land was encroached 30 years back by ITC RPI- and the same w,as taken or er b1' the Govemment under a cover of panchanama dated 09.10.2()15.

17. ln vicw of thc afbresaid discussion, it is not in dispute that the subject land is not relating to any scheduled tribe; lhat the intcrcst of schedule tribe is not involved in the instant case and that the land is claimed ro be rhc Govemment land. In the light of thc same, it can bc I l8 I.,I, J $ I,No lti0: oi lot] said that the provisions of A.p. Schedule Areas I_anrl -franslbr I(egularion I of 1959 as amended by Regulation I ol. 1970 have no application to the lacts of the present case as held by thc l{igh Courr of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of T.elangana and Andhra Pradesh in Marri Siva v. The State of Andhra pradesh2 tbllorving the principle lai<t down by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at I{yderabad in U. Subhashchandra v. Agent to Government and District Collector, Visakhapatnaml.

18. But, in the case on hand, at present, the pctitioncr. his brothers and sisters are not in possession of the subject land. IJad they been in possession of the subject property, their case rvoultl have bcen considered as per the principle raid down in Ma rri siva2 and U. Subhaschandrar. Further. they belong to Non_Tribcs Community.as admitrcd by the petitioner in thc repry affidavit submitted to rhe counter affidavit of respondent No.2. Therefore, the pctirioncr, his brothers and sisters are not entitled for handing ovcr of posscssion as the subject land is situated in Scheduled Arca. Evcn G.O.Ms.No.97l is also not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same was :. U .P. No.,:ZIioo ,,t 2008. dcciJcd trn tu. tu.20l 8 -. lqq2 i l"Al T -2 (NRCI d v l9 KL. ] WI' No I1502 of l0l1 quashed b1 this Court in P' Gangamma'' Therefore' tlte contcntion of thc petitioner that he is entitled to get possession ofthc subject land b1 virtue of G.O.Ms.No.971 though he is a nontribe is unsustainable' CONCLUSIO\ t9. As tliscussed supra, as admitted by the petitioner that hc is not in possessi,rn of the subject tand to an extent of Acs 04 07 guntas out ol Acs.05.00 guntas as the possession rvas already taken b1' respondetrt No.'l undcr cover of panchanama dated 09 1 0 201 5 and the same is uncler his saf'e custody.

20. l.earned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision renderctl b1' this Court in Pingili Pullaiah v' The State of Telangana{. It is scttled law that transfers of land from tribals to non- tribats in Scheduted Areas are prohibited and void a's held by this Court in thc said decision. l herefore, the said decision is not helpful to the pctitioner herein. Non{ribals cannot hold land in Agency Arca' Ilvcn il- a non-tribal is in possession based on revenuc cntries, such possession cloes trot conf'er legat title, especially in Scheduled Areas' 1-he Apex Court and High Courts have consistently held that mere I t W.P. No..i9758 ol-2022. decided on 24.08.2023 {' 20 KI-. J \VP No lli()l ot l0ll posscssron or revenue entries do not create ownership. pafticularh, when the land is govemment or tribal land. If the land is classified as govemment land, no individual has a legal right to its posscssion unless granted lawfully (e.g., through assignment, Icase. patta). Encroachment on govemment land does not creatc any enlbrceablc right. As discussed abovc, the petitioner is not in posscssion ol'the sub.ject land. Thercfore, considering his request fbr handing ovcr the posscssion docs not at all arise.

21. [n view of the afbresaid discussion, the ordcr passed by respondent No.2 is on sound reasoning and does not \.vaffant any interfcrence by this Court to set aside the same. Thercflore. this urit petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to bc dismissed.

22. The present writ petition is accdrdingly dismisscd. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding in the writ petiti on shall stan closed //TRUE COPY// SD/ . MALLIKARJUNA RAO SSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER l One CC to SRI A,MUNEENDHAR REDDY, Adv 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court e [oPUC] he State of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIvlE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT] To, BSR BS ,i .d HIGH COURT DATED:1110912025 o,. 22stPM ,\' * r,,^. I C,! ORDER WP.No.21502 ot 2024 I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION. WITHOUT COSTS a_tlvr ^