urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 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. Very well, I agree that Kejriwal should not be assessed so fast , he should be given more time. His tart is good, but his future actions will be scrutinized closely , hence he should move in a direction which brings majority into his fold. In India, you cannot win an election by merely hurling a corruption charges , if he wants to bring about any change he needs to do much more.
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 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 SC ruling suggests otherwise. YP Singh now ripping into Kejriwal. I don't mind him going after Gadkari notwithstanding the half baked premise, but one has to question why he let the shark slip away for a clown fish ?
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 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. I think no law anywhere in the world can convict a person for buying a stolen product as long as you can prove your transaction, it is just that user may have to return the stolen product.
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 "Kejriwal's point that farmers' land that was acquired should be returned to farmers, is against Supreme Court guidelines. The top court says there should be a public auction of such land."
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 "Mumbai: Arvind Kejriwal has concealed information about a massive scam in Maharashtra because he is selective about which politicians he targets - that's the allegation made today by YP Singh, a former senior police officer who now works as an activist" http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-sharad-pawar-is-centre-of-real-scam-says-activist-yp-singh-281496
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 "Mumbai: Arvind Kejriwal has concealed information about a massive scam in Maharashtra because he is selective about which politicians he targets - that's the allegation made today by YP Singh, a former senior police officer who now works as an activist" http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-sharad-pawar-is-centre-of-real-scam-says-activist-yp-singh-281496 I think this allegation has no truth in it as Anjali Damania's revelation about irrigation scam forced Ajit Pawar to resign.. Probably Arvind wanted to take one case at a time.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I think no law anywhere in the world can convict a person for buying a stolen product as long as you can prove your transaction' date=' it is just that user may have to return the stolen product.[/quote'] Just do a cursory Google search and you will be surprised.
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I think this allegation has no truth in it as Anjali Damania's revelation about irrigation scam forced Ajit Pawar to resign.. Probably Arvind wanted to take one case at a time. I doubt it. Gadkari is far from honest man, but Irrigation scam is Pawar family's baby
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 "Kejriwal's point that farmers' land that was acquired should be returned to farmers' date=' is against Supreme Court guidelines. The top court says there should be a public auction of such land."[/quote'] Even if Kejriwal is WRONG as this person says the law still does not say it should be allocated to a "charitable trust". Was there an auction? NO - just proves that there was a murky land dealing by two individual activists now.
Yoda-esque Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 "Mumbai: Arvind Kejriwal has concealed information about a massive scam in Maharashtra because he is selective about which politicians he targets - that's the allegation made today by YP Singh, a former senior police officer who now works as an activist" http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-sharad-pawar-is-centre-of-real-scam-says-activist-yp-singh-281496 What is stopping the others from going after crooked politicians? In any case, this could possibly be a smear campaign by the Kangress..
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I doubt it. Gadkari is far from honest man' date=' [b']but Irrigation scam is Pawar family's baby And the opposition knew about it and decided to shut their mouths for some land for "charitable trust" in Vidharbha ... quid pro quo.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Just do a cursory Google search and you will be surprised. I did, but burden of proof lies with State. In any case this analogy doesn;t work in Gadkari's case.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I did' date=' [b']but burden of proof lies with State. In any case this analogy doesn;t work in Gadkari's case. Fine - but you are still under question which was my earlier point! Similarly, Gadkari's trust should be under question.
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 What is stopping the others from going after crooked politicians? In any case, this could possibly be a smear campaign by the Kangress.. Read the entire thing. You would be pleasantly surprised. I am enjoying this whole phase of Indian politics. I admire Kejriwal's ba**S. BUt I wish it was little bit more than muck slander at times. YP Singh has produced actual documents backed by the affidavits where required. I prefer this much more. One great thing Kejriwal has done. He has brought the untouchables in our country to our level and dragged them into debates and defence. He has really gotten under the skin of Congress
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Fine - but you are still under question which was my earlier point! Similarly' date= Gadkari's trust should be under question. It should be but it is secondary. Little doubting that govt. in power has to answer first.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Oh and one more thing ... the water from the dams is being used by Gadkari's "charitable trust". The dams are meant for irrigation of the farmers.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 It should be but it is secondary. Little doubting that govt. in power has to answer first. Sorry! But I smell a rat in your statement with respect to allegiance to a particular party. There is no primary/secondary here - it is one deal and everyone in this deal should be investigated irrespective of caste, party or race. Mind it!
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Fine - but you are still under question which was my earlier point! Similarly' date=' Gadkari's trust should be under question.[/quote'] But even if there is some illegality has taken place, governement is main abettor not Ghadkari as accused by Kejriwal. He sounded as if Gadkari is main abettor which is what sounds suspicious.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Even if Kejriwal is WRONG as this person says the law still does not say it should be allocated to a "charitable trust". Was there an auction? NO - just proves that there was a murky land dealing by two individual activists now. It says that any land acquired under the 1894 law is given to state free from all encumbrances. If there is any land left after the public purpose is completed, it can be used for any other purpose as seen fit by the state. If there is no such purpose only then should it be disposed via public auction. The court prohibited sale back to the original owners of the land. http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=14996 It is settled law that land is acquired for a public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount Fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of Constitution
ravishingravi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Sorry! But I smell a rat in your statement with respect to allegiance to a particular party. There is no primary/secondary here - it is one deal and everyone in this deal should be investigated. No the rat is in your head. Like any scam I would want to break down from those having power to other elements. I would even defend Khursid's in matter of forged affidavits. They are issued by UP govt. and their role has to be examined before Khurshid's on that matter.
Recommended Posts