Malaysian Property Law

Article 13(1), Delay, Abuse of Statutory Power and Lawful Deprivation of Property

1. Case Study

Case Study: Prolonged Delay in Land Acquisition and the Constitutional Requirement of Lawful Deprivation

Background

Mr. Rahman owns a valuable parcel of land in Penang.

The State Authority begins compulsory acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

At the beginning of the process, Mr. Rahman understands that the Government intends to acquire his land for a lawful statutory purpose.

However, the acquisition proceedings are not completed within a reasonable period.

Instead, the process remains unresolved for a very long time.

During this period, Mr. Rahman is placed in a difficult position.

He cannot confidently develop the property.

He cannot plan long-term investment involving the land.

He encounters difficulty selling the property because potential purchasers know that acquisition proceedings are pending.

He also cannot enjoy the certainty that would follow from a completed acquisition and payment of compensation.

The lengthy administrative delay therefore causes serious practical and financial prejudice.

Mr. Rahman’s Complaint

Mr. Rahman argues that the problem is not merely that the Government has taken a long time.

He contends that the delay has become so serious that it produces injustice.

He therefore questions whether the acquisition has genuinely been carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

His argument raises the constitutional protection contained in Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 13(1) provides, in substance, that no person may be deprived of property except in accordance with law.

Mr. Rahman therefore argues that the Government cannot rely merely upon the existence of statutory acquisition power.

The power must also be exercised lawfully.

Relevant Case:

Pemungat Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee

A closely related issue arose in Pemungat Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee.

Salleh Abas CJ of Malaya, delivering the decision of the then Federal Court, focused upon a relatively straightforward but important question.

The court asked whether, in view of the long delay resulting in injustice to the landowner, the acquisition had genuinely been carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

The court explained that only where the acquisition had not been carried out in accordance with the Act could the deprivation of property be said to contravene Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The constitutional principle was therefore tied directly to the legality of the statutory acquisition process.

Article 13(1): Deprivation Must Be in Accordance with Law

Article 13(1) does not mean that compulsory acquisition is constitutionally prohibited.

The State may lawfully deprive a person of property where the deprivation is carried out under lawful statutory authority.

However, the constitutional requirement is that such deprivation must occur in accordance with law.

This requirement is significant because compulsory acquisition is one of the most serious forms of governmental interference with private property.

The State is therefore required to act within the legal framework governing acquisition.

Express Statutory Requirements Are Not the Only Limits

The court further explained an important administrative-law principle.

Every exercise of statutory power must comply not only with the express words of the statute.

It must also satisfy certain implied legal requirements governing the lawful exercise of public power.

This means that the legality of administrative action cannot always be determined simply by asking whether the authority completed the correct forms or invoked the correct statutory provision.

The exercise of statutory discretion must also comply with broader principles of lawful administration.

Abuse of Statutory Power

The court indicated that statutory power may be abused where it is exercised for an inadmissible purpose.

Statutory power may also be abused where the authority acts upon irrelevant grounds.

It may also be unlawful where the authority fails to take into account relevant considerations.

A further ground arises where the exercise of power is affected by gross unreasonableness.

Such conduct may cause the court to treat the exercise of statutory power as unlawful.

Long Delay as a Legal Problem

The key issue in the case was therefore not simply the passage of time.

Administrative processes inevitably require some time.

Instead, the legal concern arose because the delay had become sufficiently serious to produce injustice to the landowner.

A long and unjustified delay may therefore raise the question whether the authority is still exercising its statutory powers in the manner contemplated by law.

The Central Conflict

The case raises several important questions:

Does a lengthy delay in completing compulsory acquisition make the acquisition unlawful?

How does Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution interact with the Land Acquisition Act 1960?

Does lawful deprivation require more than literal compliance with statutory wording?

Can the court intervene where statutory power is exercised for an improper purpose, on irrelevant grounds, without considering relevant matters, or with gross unreasonableness?

2. Questions and Answers with Case Examples

Question 1: What does Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution require?

Answer

Article 13(1) protects a person from deprivation of property except in accordance with law.

This does not prevent compulsory acquisition altogether.

Instead, it requires the State to exercise its acquisition powers lawfully and within the legal framework established by legislation.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the Government may compulsorily acquire land without complying with the legal requirements governing acquisition.

Rule

A deprivation of property must be carried out in accordance with law.

Application

The State acquires Mr. Rahman’s land but completely disregards an essential legal requirement governing the acquisition process.

Conclusion

The deprivation may be inconsistent with Article 13(1) because it was not carried out in accordance with law.

Question 2: Was the issue in

Ong Gaik Kee

merely whether there had been delay?

Answer

No.

The important question was whether the long delay had resulted in injustice to the landowner and whether, in those circumstances, the acquisition could still be regarded as having been carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The legal problem therefore concerned the effect of the delay upon the lawfulness of the statutory process.

Case Example

Issue

Whether every administrative delay automatically invalidates acquisition.

Rule

Delay must be considered in its factual and legal context.

Application

A short administrative delay occurs because valuation documents require verification.

The landowner suffers no material prejudice.

By contrast, another acquisition remains unresolved for many years and seriously restricts the owner’s ability to deal with the property.

Conclusion

The second situation raises a much stronger question of injustice and legality.

Question 3: Why is “in accordance with law” important in compulsory acquisition?

Answer

Compulsory acquisition involves a forced deprivation of private property.

The State is therefore entitled to acquire land only according to the legal powers and procedures established by law.

The phrase “in accordance with law” ensures that statutory acquisition power remains legally controlled.

Case Example

Issue

Whether possession of a general acquisition power is sufficient by itself.

Rule

The authority must not only possess the statutory power but must exercise it lawfully.

Application

The Government relies upon the Land Acquisition Act 1960 but uses the power for an objective that the Act does not permit.

Conclusion

The existence of the Act alone does not cure an unlawful exercise of the power.

Question 4: Must an authority comply only with the express words of the statute?

Answer

No.

The court explained that statutory power must comply with the express wording of the legislation and with implied legal requirements governing public decision-making.

This means that statutory discretion is not legally unlimited merely because the statute uses broad language.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an authority acting literally within statutory wording may nevertheless act unlawfully.

Rule

Statutory powers are subject to both express statutory limits and implied principles of lawful administration.

Application

The authority satisfies the formal wording of a provision but uses the power solely to punish a landowner for personal reasons.

Conclusion

The exercise may still be unlawful despite formal compliance with the statutory wording.

Question 5: What is an inadmissible purpose?

Answer

An inadmissible purpose is an objective for which the statutory power was not legally conferred.

A statutory authority must use its powers for the purposes contemplated by the legislation.

It cannot lawfully redirect those powers towards an unrelated or improper objective.

Case Example

Issue

Whether compulsory acquisition may be used to punish a political critic.

Rule

Acquisition powers must be exercised for proper statutory purposes.

Application

The authority formally invokes the Land Acquisition Act 1960 but the true motive is to retaliate against Mr. Rahman for criticising an official.

Conclusion

The acquisition may constitute an abuse of power because it is directed towards an inadmissible purpose.

Question 6: What happens where an authority relies upon irrelevant grounds?

Answer

A statutory decision may be unlawful where the authority bases its decision upon considerations that have no proper legal connection with the statutory power being exercised.

The decision-maker must remain focused upon legally relevant matters.

Case Example

Issue

Whether personal dislike of the landowner is relevant to deciding whether land should be acquired.

Rule

Administrative decisions must not be based upon irrelevant considerations.

Application

Officials choose Mr. Rahman’s land because they dislike his political views rather than because of the requirements of the project.

Conclusion

The reliance upon an irrelevant ground may render the exercise of acquisition power unlawful.

Question 7: Why must relevant considerations be taken into account?

Answer

A statutory authority must genuinely consider matters that the legislation requires or logically makes relevant to the exercise of its power.

Ignoring an important consideration may distort the decision-making process.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the authority may ignore a legally important factor concerning the acquisition.

Rule

Failure to consider a relevant matter may amount to unlawful exercise of statutory discretion.

Application

The statute requires attention to particular planning factors, but the authority completely disregards them when selecting the land.

Conclusion

The acquisition decision may be vulnerable because the authority failed to consider relevant matters.

Question 8: What is gross unreasonableness?

Answer

Gross unreasonableness refers to an exercise of statutory power that is so seriously unreasonable that it becomes legally defective rather than merely debatable.

The court does not intervene simply because it would have made a different decision.

The threshold is much higher.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a court can quash an acquisition merely because another site would have been preferable.

Rule

Judicial review is not ordinary merits review.

Only sufficiently serious unreasonableness may justify intervention.

Application

The Government considers several reasonable sites and chooses one.

The landowner prefers another.

That disagreement alone is insufficient.

However, if the selected decision is utterly disconnected from the statutory objective and incapable of rational justification, the position may be different.

Conclusion

Gross unreasonableness may render the exercise of statutory power unlawful.

Question 9: Can long delay amount to abuse of statutory power?

Answer

Potentially, yes, where the delay is sufficiently serious and results in injustice.

The important question is not merely the number of months or years that have passed.

The court must consider whether the delay demonstrates that the statutory power has been exercised in a manner inconsistent with lawful administration.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a seven-year unresolved acquisition can be legally problematic.

Rule

A prolonged and unjustified delay that causes serious prejudice may raise questions about whether the acquisition was carried out according to law.

Application

For seven years, Mr. Rahman cannot sell or develop his property because acquisition remains unresolved.

The authority provides no convincing explanation for the delay.

Conclusion

The circumstances may support a challenge based upon unlawful or abusive exercise of statutory power.

Question 10: Does every unjust administrative act violate Article 13(1)?

Answer

Not automatically.

For Article 13(1) to become directly relevant, the issue must concern a deprivation of property that is not carried out in accordance with law.

The constitutional issue therefore depends upon establishing legal defect in the acquisition process.

Case Example

Issue

Whether a landowner’s sense of unfairness alone establishes a constitutional violation.

Rule

Article 13(1) requires unlawful deprivation, not merely subjective dissatisfaction.

Application

Mr. Lim is unhappy that his lawfully acquired property has increased dramatically in value after acquisition.

He identifies no illegality in the acquisition process.

Conclusion

His dissatisfaction alone does not establish a breach of Article 13(1).

Question 11: What is the relationship between administrative law and Article 13(1)?

Answer

Administrative-law principles help determine whether the acquisition power was exercised in accordance with law.

If statutory power is abused through improper purpose, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters or gross unreasonableness, the resulting deprivation may no longer satisfy the constitutional requirement of legality.

Case Example

Issue

Whether an administrative-law defect can have constitutional consequences.

Rule

Article 13(1) requires lawful deprivation of property.

Application

An acquisition is established to have been carried out for an inadmissible purpose.

That administrative illegality undermines the claim that the deprivation occurred according to law.

Conclusion

Administrative unlawfulness may therefore lead to an Article 13(1) issue.

Question 12: Does the court review the wisdom of the acquisition?

Answer

Generally, no.

The court is primarily concerned with legality rather than whether it would have made the same policy decision.

The court does not ordinarily substitute its own planning preferences for those of the State Authority.

Case Example

Issue

Whether the High Court may choose a different acquisition site simply because it appears more convenient.

Rule

Judicial review examines legal validity rather than ordinary policy merits.

Application

The State lawfully evaluates three suitable sites and selects Mr. Rahman’s property.

There is no bad faith, irrelevant consideration or gross unreasonableness.

Conclusion

The court should not intervene merely because another site might also have been suitable.

Question 13: What broader principle emerges from

Ong Gaik Kee

?

Answer

The broader principle is that every exercise of statutory acquisition power must comply with both the express statutory framework and implied requirements of lawful administration.

A deprivation of property under Article 13(1) is constitutional only where it is carried out according to law.

Case Example

Issue

How should a court approach compulsory acquisition where formal statutory steps were followed but the power was allegedly abused?

Rule

Formal compliance does not necessarily cure an exercise of power affected by fundamental administrative illegality.

Application

The correct forms are issued, but the acquisition is shown to have been motivated by an inadmissible purpose.

Conclusion

The acquisition may still be unlawful because statutory power must satisfy implied legal requirements as well as formal statutory wording.

3. Case Study Revisited

Mr. Rahman’s Delayed Acquisition

Mr. Rahman’s land becomes subject to compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The acquisition proceedings remain unresolved for an unusually long period.

During that period, Mr. Rahman is unable to plan confidently for the property.

He encounters difficulty selling the land.

He is unable to develop the property normally.

He also remains uncertain about when compensation and final acquisition will occur.

The delay therefore causes serious injustice.

Mr. Rahman relies upon Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

He argues that every deprivation of property must be carried out in accordance with law.

He relies upon Pemungat Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee.

In that case, Salleh Abas CJ of Malaya emphasised that the important question was whether the long delay resulting in injustice meant that the acquisition had not been carried out according to the Land Acquisition Act.

The court further explained that statutory power must comply not only with the express wording of legislation.

It must also comply with implied requirements of lawful administration.

Mr. Rahman therefore argues that the acquisition is unlawful because the authority has abused its statutory power.

He alleges:

an inadmissible purpose;

reliance upon irrelevant grounds;

failure to consider relevant matters;

gross unreasonableness;

and

prolonged delay causing serious injustice.

The dispute therefore concerns:

Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Lawful deprivation of property.

Long administrative delay.

Injustice to the landowner.

Express statutory requirements.

Implied legal requirements.

Abuse of statutory power.

Inadmissible purpose.

Irrelevant considerations.

Failure to consider relevant matters.

Gross unreasonableness.

Judicial review.

4. Solution to the Case Study

Issue

The first issue is whether the prolonged delay in completing Mr. Rahman’s acquisition has resulted in such injustice that the acquisition can no longer be regarded as having been carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

The second issue is whether a deprivation of property that is not carried out according to the Act may contravene Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The third issue is whether compliance with the express wording of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is sufficient.

The fourth issue is whether statutory acquisition power becomes unlawful where exercised for an inadmissible purpose, upon irrelevant grounds, without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness.

Rule

Article 13(1) requires deprivation of property to occur in accordance with law.

Compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 can satisfy that constitutional requirement where the State acts lawfully within the statutory framework.

However, Pemungat Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee establishes that every exercise of statutory power must comply not only with the express wording of the statute but also with implied legal requirements.

The exercise of power may be treated as an abuse and therefore unlawful where it is carried out:

for an inadmissible purpose;

upon irrelevant grounds;

without regard to relevant considerations;

or

with gross unreasonableness.

Prolonged delay causing injustice may also raise the question whether the acquisition has genuinely been carried out in accordance with the Act.

Application

First: The Long Delay

The mere existence of some delay does not automatically invalidate Mr. Rahman’s acquisition.

Administrative procedures may legitimately require time.

However, the present delay is prolonged.

It has significantly affected Mr. Rahman’s ability to use, develop or sell the property.

It has also left him in extended uncertainty concerning the fate of his land.

The cumulative prejudice may therefore support the argument that the delay has produced genuine injustice.

Second: Article 13(1)

If the delay and accompanying administrative conduct show that the acquisition was not carried out according to the Land Acquisition Act 1960, Article 13(1) becomes directly relevant.

The Constitution permits deprivation of property only according to law.

An acquisition tainted by sufficiently serious illegality may therefore fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Third: Express and Implied Legal Requirements

The authority cannot simply argue that it completed the necessary documents and therefore acted lawfully.

Formal statutory compliance is important.

However, statutory powers must also be exercised consistently with implied administrative-law limitations.

The court may therefore examine the legal quality of the authority’s exercise of discretion.

Fourth: Inadmissible Purpose

If the evidence establishes that the acquisition power was used for an objective that the law does not permit, the acquisition may be unlawful.

This would constitute abuse of statutory power.

Fifth: Irrelevant Grounds

If the authority selected Mr. Rahman’s land because of irrelevant personal, political or collateral considerations, that would undermine the legality of the decision.

Sixth: Failure to Consider Relevant Matters

If legally important factors were ignored, the authority may have failed properly to exercise its statutory discretion.

Seventh: Gross Unreasonableness

If the authority’s decision or prolonged handling of the acquisition reaches the level of gross unreasonableness, judicial intervention may be justified.

This is a high threshold.

The court should not intervene merely because another administrative approach might have been better.

Conclusion

Mr. Rahman has a potentially strong challenge if he can show that the prolonged delay has caused serious injustice and reflects an acquisition process that was not carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

If the acquisition was not legally carried out according to the Act, the deprivation may also be inconsistent with Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

The case therefore demonstrates that statutory acquisition power is subject both to express statutory rules and to implied principles controlling the lawful exercise of administrative discretion.

5. Critical Analysis

1. Article 13(1) Does Not Prohibit Compulsory Acquisition

The constitutional protection of property does not mean that private land can never be acquired by the State.

Compulsory acquisition remains permissible where authorised by law.

The constitutional safeguard instead requires that deprivation occur through a lawful process.

2. “In Accordance with Law” Is More Than a Formal Requirement

The importance of Ong Gaik Kee lies in rejecting an excessively formal understanding of legality.

A public authority cannot necessarily demonstrate lawful action merely by pointing to statutory forms or procedural documents.

The exercise of power must also conform to broader administrative-law principles.

3. Implied Legal Requirements Limit Statutory Discretion

Statutes do not need to state every rule of lawful administration expressly.

The exercise of statutory power is ordinarily understood to be subject to implied limitations.

These include proper purpose.

They include relevance of considerations.

They include rationality.

They include the prohibition against abuse of power.

This prevents broad statutory wording from becoming a licence for arbitrary government action.

4. Long Delay Can Produce Real Property Injustice

A pending acquisition can substantially affect a landowner even before the property is formally taken.

The owner may find the land difficult to sell.

Development may become commercially impractical.

Financing may become harder to obtain.

Long-term plans may be abandoned.

The owner therefore bears the burden of uncertainty while the State delays.

5. Delay Must Be Evaluated Through Its Consequences

Not every delay is unlawful.

The important question is why the delay occurred and what consequences it produced.

A justified delay caused by complex valuation may be legally different from unexplained administrative inactivity lasting years.

The focus upon injustice therefore prevents the doctrine from becoming mechanically dependent upon a fixed period.

6. Improper Purpose Converts Statutory Authority into Abuse

A statutory power granted for one objective cannot lawfully be diverted towards another inadmissible objective.

This reflects the principle already visible in mala fide and ultra vires acquisition cases.

The Government may possess the power to acquire land.

That does not mean it may use that power for retaliation, speculation or another legally irrelevant object.

7. Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations Discipline Administrative Decision-Making

An administrative authority must exercise judgment based upon legally proper matters.

Allowing irrelevant factors to determine acquisition undermines rational and lawful administration.

Equally, refusing to consider relevant matters may mean that the statutory discretion has never been properly exercised.

These doctrines therefore help courts supervise the quality of public decision-making without simply substituting their own policy preferences.

8. Gross Unreasonableness Is an Important but High Threshold

The inclusion of gross unreasonableness demonstrates that an exercise of statutory power may become unlawful even where no express statutory prohibition has been violated.

However, judicial restraint remains important.

Courts should not label a decision grossly unreasonable merely because another solution appears preferable.

Otherwise, judicial review would become ordinary merits review.

9. The Case Links Administrative Law Directly with Constitutional Property Protection

One of the strongest features of the decision is the connection between administrative legality and Article 13(1).

The Constitution requires deprivation according to law.

Administrative-law principles help determine whether the State has satisfied that requirement.

Therefore, abuse of statutory power may have consequences not merely under ordinary administrative law but also under constitutional property protection.

10. The Decision Reinforces the Rule That Statutory Power Is Never Absolute

The case fits within a wider line of Malaysian administrative-law reasoning.

Wide discretion does not mean unlimited discretion.

Statutory power remains subject to legal boundaries.

This is consistent with the broader principle that every public power exists for legal purposes and must be exercised rationally, relevantly and in good faith.

6. Recommendations

1. Acquisition Proceedings Should Be Completed Without Unreasonable Delay

Authorities should avoid leaving landowners in prolonged uncertainty.

2. Reasons for Significant Delay Should Be Recorded

Where acquisition requires an extended period, the authority should maintain clear records explaining why the delay was necessary.

3. Article 13(1) Should Remain Central to Property Deprivation

Public authorities should recognise that compulsory acquisition must always satisfy the constitutional requirement of legality.

4. Express Statutory Compliance Should Not Be Treated as Sufficient in Isolation

Decision-makers should also comply with the implied requirements governing lawful administrative action.

5. Acquisition Powers Should Be Used Only for Proper Purposes

Authorities should ensure that statutory powers are never redirected towards collateral or inadmissible objectives.

6. Irrelevant Considerations Should Be Excluded

Personal, political or unrelated considerations should play no role in the acquisition decision.

7. Relevant Considerations Should Be Properly Addressed

Decision-makers should identify and genuinely consider the matters relevant to the statutory purpose.

8. Administrative Decisions Should Remain Rational

Authorities should avoid decisions or delays so unreasonable that they become legally indefensible.

9. Landowners Should Challenge Serious Delay Promptly

Where prolonged delay causes substantial prejudice, affected owners should seek legal advice and appropriate remedies without unnecessary delay.

10. Courts Should Balance Administrative Necessity with Property Protection

Judicial review should not become ordinary merits review, but courts should remain willing to intervene where delay or misuse of power renders the acquisition unlawful.

7. Conclusion

Pemungat Hasil Tanah, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang v Ong Gaik Kee provides an important Malaysian authority connecting compulsory acquisition, administrative-law legality and Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Salleh Abas CJ of Malaya focused upon the effect of a long delay resulting in injustice to the landowner.

The central question was whether, in those circumstances, the acquisition could still be regarded as having been carried out in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

This was constitutionally important because Article 13(1) requires every deprivation of property to occur in accordance with law.

The case therefore does not establish that every delay automatically invalidates an acquisition.

Instead, the court asks whether the delay and surrounding circumstances show that the acquisition process has ceased to satisfy the legal requirements imposed upon the acquiring authority.

The decision also establishes a broader principle.

Every exercise of statutory power must comply with the express wording of the statute.

However, express compliance alone is not enough.

Statutory power must also comply with implied legal requirements governing lawful administrative action.

An exercise of acquisition power may therefore be treated as an abuse where it is carried out for an inadmissible purpose.

It may also be unlawful where based upon irrelevant grounds.

It may be defective where the authority fails to consider relevant matters.

It may further become unlawful where the exercise of power reaches the level of gross unreasonableness.

The important distinction is therefore between a lawful compulsory acquisition that happens to disadvantage a landowner and a deprivation of property produced through unlawful statutory action.

Only the latter raises the Article 13(1) problem identified in the case.

For Malaysian Property Law, the central principle can therefore be stated as follows:

A compulsory acquisition satisfies Article 13(1) only where the deprivation of property is carried out in accordance with law, and lawful exercise of statutory power requires compliance not only with the express provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 but also with implied administrative-law requirements prohibiting improper purpose, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, gross unreasonableness and other forms of abuse of power.

Accordingly, prolonged delay becomes especially significant where it produces injustice and indicates that the acquisition process has not been conducted in the lawful manner required by the Act.

Ultimately, the case balances:

the State’s statutory power of compulsory acquisition;

the constitutional protection of property under Article 13(1);

the requirement that deprivation occur according to law;

protection against prolonged administrative injustice;

the prohibition against abuse of statutory power;

and

the supervisory role of the courts in ensuring that governmental acquisition powers remain within both express and implied legal limits.