urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Excess land must be returned to the farmers - if they refuse they should go back to the government and not any organization. Black and white as you get. What part of this is so difficult to understand? Point here is Govt hasn't sold the land to Gadkari but given it on lease for 11 years for a public cause.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 95. When any land or part thereof, acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of ten years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion; 96. Whenever the ownership of any land acquired under this Act is transferred to any person for a consideration, without any development having taken place on such land, twenty per cent. of the appreciated land value shall be shared amongst the persons from whom the lands were acquired or their heirs, in proportion to the value at which the lands were acquired Were the lands acquired by Maharashtra government acquired under in 1983 under the Land acquisition bill of 2011? Is this bill retroactively applied, especially when AFAIK it has not even been signed into law yet.
Trichromatic Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Were the lands acquired by Maharashtra government acquired under in 1983 under the Land acquisition bill of 2011? Is this bill retroactively applied' date=' especially when AFAIK it has not even been signed into law yet.[/quote'] I was wondering the same.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 So, it doesn't matter if only 1 farmer demands the land. It becomes legal or grey if the cheating is not large-scale? :blink: Illegal allotment is illegal, no matter how you see it. Govt had planned to use this land for beautification purpose which they had not done, hence used as nursery to subsidize the sugarcane saplings. Important thing here is , has any individual benefited due to this dealing because of which you can allege that corruption has taken place? No. I'd have happily agreed it as a scam if the land was transferred to Gadkari's NGO , but this is just a case of giving it on lease.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Can you cite the law which states that excess acquired land must be given back to the farmers? Ganesh, I do not have the exact law but relying on reports from multiple credible media sources including IBNLive, NDTV and Firstpost. The land given to Gadkari's trust on lease is meant for irrigation and the Irrigation Secretary raised objections about it while the former minister Ajit Pawar ruled out those objections and swiftly proceeded to allocated the land to Gadkari's trust on lease. BJP's defence is that because Gadkari's trust is "charitable" and Gadkari does not ( at least himself) profit from the land allocation or the trust project it is all good. This is a very particularly weak defence because the core issue is if allocation of land to Gadkari's trust is legal or not. Also even if it is legal, it raises a larger issue of collusion or quid pro quo because even though BJP is the opposition party in Maharashtra a ruling party swiftly allocates huge land to a BJP aide. Why was this allocation made so swiftly? There's a high probability that this allocation is in exchange for irrigation scam which again involves (surprise surprise!) Ajit Pawar at the helm once again. Even if not, why is this land allocated to Gadkari's trust ONLY? Have the procedures been followed? There are so many questions which require a comprehensive investigation to know the answers.
Trichromatic Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical: As someone mentioned in this or a related thread, all this is nothing but good media time and entertainment. Referring to this post? Arnab Goswami just asked this question - Is this policy of hit and run sustainable? Media has been biggest factor in IAC's campaign so far. They are giving coverage to IAC and Kejriwal because they see it good product for viewers. Sensational news and burning questions. Lot of drama - like Khushid's press conference and whatever happened after that. It's more entertaining than many regular tv serials. But at least once people will get bored of this shows and start asking - what's the use of all this. I guess IAC needs to get at least 1 case to it's anzaam. That will be very helpful to his party as people will start believing that he can actually do something instead of just making allegations. Slowly interests of Indians and media will fade away and news channels won't find it good enough to give coverage 24 x 7.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Point here is Govt hasn't sold the land to Gadkari but given it on lease for 11 years for a public cause. I do get your point mate but to do so requires following a procedure. There are two cases : [1] Procedure broke, a certain individual benefits [2] Procedure broken, no one benefits Even if [2] is the case ; it is of utmost importance to investigate as it is still breaking the law! It still leaves Gadkari's trust as a "criminal" albeit with lesser charges than it would have been in case [1]. Read the post by Vibhash.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Ganesh, I do not have the exact law but relying on reports from multiple credible media sources including IBNLive, NDTV and Firstpost. In that case can you quote the media report which says that excess land acquired must be returned back to the farmers. The reason I am asking is that I went through the law but didnt find any such provision in it, maybe I missed it.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Referring to this post? Slowly interests of Indians and media will fade away and news channels won't find it good enough to give coverage 24 x 7. It is a good question by Goswami but here are two fantastic replies. It is also difficult to overlook the effect that Kejriwal and his high-decibel campaign are having in the political and administrative ecosystem. Kejriwal is, as we have noted earlier, looking to stir things up in the system. It may seem like muckraking or hit-and-run tactics, but even in cases where he started off without adequate evidence of illegality (for instance, in the Vadra case), subsequent events have validated and taken forward his allegations. Kejriwal is going about sowing the wind. But his actions are having a catalytic effect and are whipping up a whirlwind. And in all that dust that is whipped up, the masks are falling off even established political leaders and parties. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/gadkari-expose-fell-flat-but-kejriwal-is-working-to-a-plan-494380.html Arvind Kejriwal is stating the obvious when he says all of them are in it together and the entire charade of opposition protests Bharat Bandhs, stalling of Parliament etc is for public consumption. But it is something that has to be stated loud and clear again and again so that the country does not forget that the politicians now form a distinct class, separate from others. As members of a class they have to protect each otherÃÔ interests and be guided by mutual sympathy. The ÃÄhar kaam hum unke karte hain, char kaam woh hamara karte hain arrangement is not in the countryÃÔ interest. LetÃÔ thanks Kejriwal for drilling that into public consciousness. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/political-fixing-runs-deep-thank-kejriwal-for-reminding-us-that-494771.html
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I do get your point mate but to do so requires following a procedure. There are two cases : [1] Procedure broke, a certain individual benefits [2] Procedure broken, no one benefits Even if [2] is the case ; it is of utmost importance to investigate as it is still breaking the law! It still leaves Gadkari's trust as a "criminal" albeit with lesser charges than it would have been in case [1]. Read the post by Vibhash. Mate, Point is you cannot apply a 2011 land bill to a deal which has taken place in 2005/06. Unless you state a law which disallows a land to a different purpose other than what is was acquired for, this can't be termed illegal. As far as your statement about "Gadkari's trust as a "criminal", even if the transaction was illegal, Govt should be held responsible not Gadkari's trust.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 In that case can you quote the media report which says that excess land acquired must be returned back to the farmers. The reason I am asking is that I went through the law but didnt find any such provision in it' date=' maybe I missed it.[/quote'] Oh ok - here are some. But I guess Vibhash's post nails it. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/political-fixing-runs-deep-thank-kejriwal-for-reminding-us-that-494771.html http://www.firstpost.com/politics/gadkari-expose-fell-flat-but-kejriwal-is-working-to-a-plan-494380.html http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/with-ajit-pawar-s-blessing-nitin-gadkari-grabbed-farmers-land-kejriwal-targets-bjp-281035?pfrom=home-otherstories
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 It is a good question by Goswami but here are two fantastic replies. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/gadkari-expose-fell-flat-but-kejriwal-is-working-to-a-plan-494380.html http://www.firstpost.com/politics/political-fixing-runs-deep-thank-kejriwal-for-reminding-us-that-494771.html Fact is Kejriwal's tactics of corruption allegation is all fine to stir the things up, but for how long? You cannot have a complete destructive view points if you want to enter politics, they have move on to other core issues, plan to build the party from grass root, start a volunteer campaign in each and every village if they want to go forward in politics.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I was wondering the same. As I see it, a case could probably be made out of the fact that the government allotted the land within 4 days which would be impossible if a member of the general public applied for a similar piece of land. It indicates that Gadkari's trust was treated differently because of his political activities. Other than that the acquisition was done under the 1894 law which I went through and though I am nowhere close to being an expert on reading and interpreting law, I wasn't able to find a clause which states that that a farmer can demand back the land and it must be given back to him. It is most probably a matter of discretion on the part of the government which follows that from time to time. According to Gadkari, the person who demanded back the land continues to use it. I dont see any laws being broken here. Kejriwal leaking of Gadkari's name and building up the hype was the reason the accusations didnt generate a storm. They gave the BJP time to prepare a response and present a united face. Unlike the congress which scrambled when Vadra and Khurshid were targeted out of the blue and its leaders committed a series of faux-pas trying to defend the duo. Like I posted before, targeting BJP lends an air of credibility to the IAC and thats about it. Gadkari has agreed to face a probe and the government should order one since an accusation has been made. But prima facie, IAC's case seems weak.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Mate, Point is you cannot apply a 2011 land bill to a deal which has taken place in 2005/06. Unless you state a law which disallows a land to a different purpose other than what is was acquired for, this can't be termed illegal. As far as your statement about "Gadkari's trust as a "criminal", even if the transaction was illegal, Govt should be held responsible not Gadkari's trust. I want more clarity with respect to the land bill rules - all credible media sources are stating otherwise. For the highlighted, you are correct as well as wrong. Government would definitely be taking full responsibility but a sizeable blame will lie with Gadkari's trust. This is quite akin to buying stolen illegal products ; both the person who sells them and the person who buys them are culpable. The person who buys it may be free but is under question - is my point. Next, as I said it raises a larger issue of why this deal went forward so quickly despite foul calls by the Irrigation Minister. What was it for? It seems a quid pro quo on surface with regards to the irrigation scam by Ajit Pawar. An investigation should clear up a lot of things. It is too premature to give anyone a clean chit - Ajit Pawar NCP government, Gadkari's trust and BJP government.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Fact is Kejriwal's tactics of corruption allegation is all fine to stir the things up' date=' but for how long? You cannot have a complete destructive view points if you want to enter politics, they have move on to other core issues, plan to build the party from grass root, start a volunteer campaign in each and every village if they want to go forward in politics.[/quote'] Here's an answer to that too and I would request you (and all other people who are asking these questions) to peruse this article. We need to give Kejriwal time: he is testing the waters http://www.firstpost.com/politics/we-need-to-give-kejriwal-time-he-is-testing-the-waters-494970.html We too quickly dismiss or elevate a person to GOD like levels - we need to be more patient.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 As I see it, a case could probably be made out of the fact that the government allotted the land within 4 days which would be impossible if a member of the general public applied for a similar piece of land. It indicates that Gadkari's trust was treated differently because of his political activities. Other than that the acquisition was done under the 1894 law which I went through and though I am nowhere close to being an expert on reading and interpreting law, I wasn't able to find a clause which states that that a farmer can demand back the land and it must be given back to him. It is most probably a matter of discretion on the part of the government which follows that from time to time. According to Gadkari, the person who demanded back the land continues to use it. I dont see any laws being broken here. Kejriwal leaking of Gadkari's name and building up the hype was the reason the accusations didnt generate a storm. They gave the BJP time to prepare a response and present a united face. Unlike the congress which scrambled when Vadra and Khurshid were targeted out of the blue and its leaders committed a series of faux-pas trying to defend the duo. Like I posted before, targeting BJP lends an air of credibility to the IAC and thats about it. Gadkari has agreed to face a probe and the government should order one since an accusation has been made. But prima facie, IAC's case seems weak. I feel same, was there any backroom deal between BJP and IAC? It almost looked as if BJP knew what was coming and they had prepared defense even before Kejriwal went to air :cantstop: It is win -win situation for both IAC and BJP , as IAC gains an air credibility with pro-congress national media and BJP benifiting from a weak accusation.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I want more clarity with respect to the land bill rules - all credible media sources are stating otherwise. For the highlighted, you are correct as well as wrong. Government would definitely be taking full responsibility but a sizeable blame will lie with Gadkari's trust. This is quite akin to buying stolen illegal products ; both the person who sells them and the person who buys them are culpable. The person who buys it may be free but is under question - is my point. Next, as I said it raises a larger issue of why this deal went forward so quickly despite foul calls by the Irrigation Minister. What was it for? It seems a quid pro quo on surface with regards to the irrigation scam by Ajit Pawar. An investigation should clear up a lot of things. It is too premature to give anyone a clean chit - Ajit Pawar NCP government, Gadkari's trust and BJP government. If you buy a stolen product unknowingly , you are not culpable but only seller is. Also in this case, govt has leased this land for yearly rent, hence Gadkari's trust cannot be accused of criminal intent.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Other than that the acquisition was done under the 1894 law which I went through and though I am nowhere close to being an expert on reading and interpreting law, I wasn't able to find a clause which states that that a farmer can demand back the land and it must be given back to him. It is most probably a matter of discretion on the part of the government which follows that from time to time. According to Gadkari, the person who demanded back the land continues to use it. I dont see any laws being broken here. Vibhash posted the law I guess and from what I understand it means - [95] Should be returned to the appropriate government [96] Give it back to the farmers with proportionate prices On the contrary, this land was given to a trust which 95 and 96 does not deal with. Doesn't that make it illegal?
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 If you buy a stolen product unknowingly ' date= you are not culpable but only seller is. Also in this case, govt has leased this land for yearly rent, hence Gadkari's trust cannot be accused of criminal intent. You are supposed to prove that you have "unknowingly" bought it - the proof of burden lies on the person who bought the illegal product. You are still under question - even if you lease an illegal product.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Vibhash posted the law I guess and from what I understand it means - [95] Should be returned to the appropriate government [96] Give it back to the farmers with proportionate prices On the contrary, this land was given to a trust which 95 and 96 does not deal with. Doesn't that make it illegal? Vibhash posted the part from the land acquisition bill of 2011 which hasn't even been signed into law yet. The acquisition was most probably done under the bill of 1894 which doesnt specify such provisions. From the quotes in the other post, the NDTV only quotes Kejriwal as saying that under the rules, the land must be given back to the farmer. Firstpost almost reproduces the quote verbatim without attributing it to Kejriwal. Maybe a lawyer (Mariyam?) can clarify the legal aspect of the matter better
Recommended Posts