Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Huh? these factories are giving employment to thousands and helping the sugar cane farmers to sell their product and byproducts are used for power generation. And also making thousands jobless by polluting the water. Lets say even if what you say is true - why should sugarcane take precedence over normal farming and fishing?
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 The court took a judgment on land acquisition for national highway construction and not for building dams. I am talking specifically with respect to excess land for dams. In addition' date=' your interpretation is way back in 1997 and there is chance things may have changed.[/quote'] Like I posted in my previous post, the dams/roads distinction is immaterial when the court's judgement interprets the 1894 law as land acquired for any public purpose. But in either case, how does that prove your point (in Post #54) that the government not selling back the land to the farmers was illegal?
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 And also making thousands jobless by polluting the water. Lets say even if what you say is true - why should sugarcane take precedence over normal farming and fishing? Because farmers need factories / mills to process their production :winky:
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Like I posted in my previous post' date=' the dams/roads distinction is immaterial when the court's judgement interprets the 1894 law as land acquired for [b']any public purpose. But in either case, how does that prove your point (in Post #54) that the government not selling back the land to the farmers was illegal? I am not a legal expert but from my limited understanding laws can have amendments as time passes and can be interpreted differently in different cases. One cases way back in 1997 does not prove or refute your point. It is a credible data point nonetheless but not one which settles the argument. As per your question, I was speaking with respect to the order which I posted in #109 post. As I said earlier, irregular for me is illegal.
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I am not a legal expert but from my limited understanding laws can have amendments as time passes and can be interpreted differently in different cases. One cases way back in 1997 does not prove or refute your point. It is a credible data point nonetheless but not one which settles the argument. The particular law of 1894 doesnt even contain this provision of what should be done to unused public land so its safe to say that there have been no amendments to it. Unless there exists a specific SC judgement which says that dam land should be used differently, the 1997 judgement stands and will be used as a precedent. The only other alternative is that the farmers move the court and the court rules in their favour. In absence of both these events, the MH government did not do anything illegal when it refused to sell back the land to the farmers. As per your question, I was speaking with respect to the order which I posted in #109 post. As I said earlier, irregular for me is illegal. That's a government order and not the law. Its something that the government is empowered to revoke at any time, but in the case of a law, no government can contravene the provisions of a law. Any GO that goes against the law or SC judgement will be considered illegal. But even then your contention in posts #54 and #109 were different. In #54 you said that the government is bound by law to sell back the land to the the farmers when they demanded it back. In #109, you cited a letter by the irrigation government which prohibits it from leasing to private parties. Both points are totally different and the violation of the latter does not imply the former.
PaceAttack Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I don't understand. Vidharba has highest number of farmer's suicide. Here is a fat politician who takes away farmers land which was acquired by govt from farmers to build a dam and this fatty builds a factory and pollutes the farm land, then he comes up with an explanation that he is giving job to farmers. Instead of giving back the land to farmers, this fatty takes away their land to build a factory. I don't understand how people can justify this? If he wants to give jobs to farmers, shouldn't he build a factory in a waste land which was not used for farming? why should he take away farmers land to build a factory? and whats more, they pollute the farm land and use Dam water. Disgusting people. I fail to understand the logic.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I don't understand. Vidharba has highest number of farmer's suicide. Here is a fat politician who takes away farmers land which was acquired by govt from farmers to build a dam and this fatty builds a factory and pollutes the farm land, then he comes up with an explanation that he is giving job to farmers. Instead of giving back the land to farmers, this fatty takes away their land to build a factory. I don't understand how people can justify this? If he wants to give jobs to farmers, shouldn't he build a factory in a waste land which was not used for farming? why should he take away farmers land to build a factory? and whats more, they pollute the farm land and use Dam water. Disgusting people. I fail to understand the logic. Oh, wait..WTF are you talking about? What factory in farm land? Are you exposing Gadkari with some new info or what?
PaceAttack Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Oh' date=' wait..WTF are you talking about? What factory in farm land? Are you exposing Gadkari with some new info or what?[/quote'] What did he do with the land he got from the Govt?
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 There is every chance that Gadkari is corrupt, only the contrary would be surprising and I am sure there must have been collusion between Pawar and Gadkari for the ministry to consider giving the land within 4 days especially in government offices where even small things take weeks. Gadkari should face a probe since allegations were raised which he is ready to. But IAC's case looks very weak in this particular matter.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 The particular law of 1894 doesnt even contain this provision of what should be done to unused public land so its safe to say that there have been no amendments to it. Unless there exists a specific SC judgement which says that dam land should be used differently, the 1997 judgement stands and will be used as a precedent. The only other alternative is that the farmers move the court and the court rules in their favour. In absence of both these events, the MH government did not do anything illegal when it refused to sell back the land to the farmers. Hang on - can you point me out to a law rather than a judgment? A judgment is on the properties of a case. I see no similarity between the properties of cases for a "national highway construction" versus that of a "dam construction". One case does not extrapolate other's judgment. You need an updated law which speaks about land acquisition not a pre-dated judgment on land acquisition. Judgments for rape cases would be different in 1997 than they are in 2012, as an example. I do not want to generalize. That's a government order and not the law. Its something that the government is empowered to revoke at any time, but in the case of a law, no government can contravene the provisions of a law. Any GO that goes against the law or SC judgement will be considered illegal. But even then your contention in posts #54 and #109 were different. In #54 you said that the government is bound by law to sell back the land to the the farmers when they demanded it back. In #109, you cited a letter by the irrigation government which prohibits it from leasing to private parties. Both points are totally different and the violation of the latter does not imply the former. Oh yea - I get what you are trying to say. So you make a government order just to ignore it? Post #54 is based on what Vibhash posted the law and posts #109 is based on the government letter. Yes they are indeed different . Lets settle this by posting the exact law.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 http://www.tehelka.com/story_main54.asp?filename=Ne061012Coverstory.asp Mega irrigation scam http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ne280511Coverstory.asp
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Hang on - can you point me out to a law rather than a judgment? A judgment is on the properties of a case. I see no similarity between the properties of cases for a "national highway construction" versus that of a "dam construction". One case does not extrapolate other's judgment. You need an updated law which speaks about land acquisition not a pre-dated judgment on land acquisition. Judgments for rape cases would be different in 1997 than they are in 2012' date=' as an example. I do not want to generalize.[/quote'] The law is the 1894 law which doesn't talk about any provision to return the land back to the farmers when they demand it. The 1997 judgement is when the SC interprets the 1894 act that the government should not sell back the land to the original owners of the land. Even in the absence of the 1997 judgement, refusal of MH government to sell back the land cannot be construed as illegal since the original law doesn't make any references to it. The bill that Vihash posted is not even a law yet so its provisions are irrelevant in this discussion. Even if it becomes a law it is not applicable to an older acquisition done under 1894 law. The post #54 is hence wrong.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 The law is the 1894 law which doesn't talk about any provision to return the land back to the farmers when they demand it. The 1997 judgement is when the SC interprets the 1894 act that the government should not sell back the land to the original owners of the land. Even in the absence of the 1997 judgement, refusal of MH government to sell back the land cannot be construed as illegal since the original law doesn't make any references to it. The bill that Vihash posted is not even a law yet so its provisions are irrelevant in this discussion. Even if it becomes a law it is not applicable to an older acquisition done under 1894 law. The post #54 is hence wrong. A directive from 1984 states that if the land is unused for 10 years it should be returned back to the original owners. In this case, not only was Ghadge tilling the land for 10 years but doing so since 1982! https://www.box.com/s/9toez6gxa1w9b0m91djb
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 This is even more funny - the Irrigation department has issued a letter to the Sarpanch to give excess land to villagers on a FCFS basis. https://www.box.com/s/a49ib1owace7wfs3bwrt
rkt.india Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Actually old acqusition law does not have the provision of giving land back to farmers but it was a supreme court order.
PaceAttack Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Actually old acqusition law does not have the provision of giving land back to farmers but it was a supreme court order. Leave the law and the supreme court orders. It is just basic humanity that they give back the land to farmers if the land is not used by the Govt for any project. Instead of giving it back to the farmers, they give it to a politician.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Actually old acqusition law does not have the provision of giving land back to farmers but it was a supreme court order. RKT - can you please post the SC order?
seedhi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 RKT - can you please post the SC order?This is a summary of the various judgments on this issue. http://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/10/vesting-of-land-with-state-concept.html 12. In Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517, this Court held that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested. The same view has been reiterated in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1170; Pratap & Anr. (Supra); Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 405; Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424; State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; M. Ramalinga Thevar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 322; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492. 13. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held as under: Å°nce the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the.......declaration. ............. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever.
seedhi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 RKT - can you please post the SC order?This is the text of the SC judgment of 1997. http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/943108/ . It says: 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. I guess, a cooperative society which plants sugercane saplings to distribute among local farmers at a subsidized rate can be thought of as a public purpose, especially since the land has been given on only a 11 year lease.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Seedhi, What is the directive of 1984 which people are repeatedly referring to? Also, the co-operative is a profit making business - I am not sure if it can be thought of as public. Even the recent LARR does not define any private organization as public.
Recommended Posts