It’s almost been a month since CPM leader Sitaram Yechury announced that discussions for impeachment had begun, but the Congress hasn’t revealed its cards.
Sitaram Yechury of CPI-M has said that the opposition is considering a move to impeach the present Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. Experts weigh in.
Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari says CJI must not give anyone reason to complain, not only judges and lawyers, even litigants must not be able to raise doubts.
‘Mother kept pouring water in our eyes whenever the burning became unbearable. She pushed our bodies deep into the blanket, making sure not a single part was exposed,’ my father said.
December oil imports from Russia may drop nearly 50%, but Indian buyers already shifting to non-designated Russian entities and opaque trading channels to keep Russian oil flowing.
The helicopters produced by Lockheed Martin are known as ‘submarine hunters’. India ordered 24 of these aircraft in 2020 to replace the Sea King helicopters. 15 have been delivered till date.
The India-South Africa series-defining fact is the catastrophic decline of Indian red ball cricket where a visiting team can mock us with the 'grovel' word.
What will be the impact of the judgement dtd. 06-03-2020 of 5 judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (regarding land acquisition cases sec. 24(2)) , on the metters decided on 31-08-2016 of the same nature. Will the effect of judgement dtd. 06-03-2020 is retrospective or prospective.
I fully agree with Raju. Justice Mishra is definitely behaving like Govt Advocate. In the recent Bangalore development authority vs other and order pronounced on 3.8.2018 he became advocate of BDA and dubbed that there’s no time limit or reasonable time to complete preliminary notification formalities.
Further more he has asked BDA to notify all the land in Final notification that have been taken in preliminary notification. No public rehearsal under section 19.
Justice Arun mishra appearing like advocate of acquiring body. Referring to recent judgement given by him stating 2014 Pune judgement , Mishra Smartly shifted acquition in fevour of acquiring body. Simply twisted Simple and straight forward words like Deposit, Treasury , Paid, Payment and compensation. Blunder is he dared to state that all over india farmers who has not got compensation all of them refused to take compensation.
In SLP(C) No. 9798/2016 Indore Development authority Vs. Shyam Verma (pending adjudication) it is an interpretation of Sec. 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013 which is with regard to lapsing of acquisition where compensation was not paid or possession was not taken before 31.12.2013. But it was very much clear in implementing Sec. 24(1)(a) wherein the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013 are applicable with regard to determination of compensation where no Award was passed u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 before 31.12.2013. (Aligarh Development Authority Vs. Megh Singh & others Civil Appeal No. 4821/2016 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4282 of 2011 and also Allahabad High Court Judgment on Ishan International Educational Vs. State of UP & 3 others decided on 09/05/2017 under WRIT – C No. 60276/2015.
My property is acquired under the provisions of the State self Contained code for Land Acquisition. No Award was passed on or before repealed of the LA Act 1894. Kindly reply me weather I am entitled for payment of compensation under the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013?
Major difference between award made and award paid , if the award amount is not paid in to the bank account that award should not be considered as the award paid hence new act should be applicable to ascertain the compensation award for such acquisition . whether the award amount was paid to the acquiring body or not that is immaterial ,
8 feb ki judgement ke anusaar yadi aap apne adhigrahan ko rokne ke liye court se stay letey hai to wo 5 saal ki awadhi me shaamil nahi hoga,kripya ye bataye ki aam aadmi court ke maadhyam se apna virodh nahi darj karayega to uske paas kya vikalp bachta hai,aam aadmi ke paas itna paisa nahi ki le de kar ya itni taakat nahi ki bahubal se prashaasan ko adhigrahan se rok de,aashcharya ye hai ki court khud hi kah raha ki mere paas mat aao,bada aascharya hota hai,aisi baat sun kar
जज भी आखिर सरकारी नौकर ही हैं,न्याय्धिस नही. इनकी नयुक्ति सरकार द्वारा , सरकार के लिए ही होती है.दीपक मिश्रा हो या अरुण मिश्रा या रविन्द्र भट ये सभी नरेन्द्र मोदी भक्त हैं.मैं स्वयं रविन्द्र भट द्वारा पीड़ित हूँ.
Using the word carelessness among higher judiciary in this country is unfortunate. Cases between bench vs bench is undesirable. It shows our judiciary is yet to develop.This RFCTLARR Act was drafted for a decade.The houses of parliament deliberately drafted this Act to meter out some benefit to the land looser who have been paid in pittance.The land owners were made to loose their crops for 3 to four decades due to acquisition.This loss who is going to compensate.Paying compensation as per 110 year old law is inhuman.Hence to give solace to the land owners this sec 24 (2) was inserted.On the basis of it the SG of I has also given explanation to the terms of this section.On the basis of these clarifications about 3000 judgments have been delivered by the SC and HC of this country.At this juncture some vested interest has initiated steps to dismantle this Act in such a way that farmers are continued to be looser forever in India.India do have scope only for development in all sphere.
In indore development vs. Shailendra judgment it has referred judgment of Aligarh Muncipal Corporation Vs. Megh sons at page 181. It is referred as ” where Award under sec. 11 of the said LA Act 1894 is not made then all provisions of this new LA Act 2013 is applicable with regard to determination & payment of compensation. Now the question lies as follows:
1. What happens when a land is acquired under self contained code of a state ( acquisition not under LA Act 1894) & meger compensation offered under consent, meger amount rejected, requested to pass an Award and Award is not passed as on 31.12.2013. A fabricated Award was drafted by SLAO & was passed by Deputy Commissioner on 24.02.2014 without following the provisions of the Act, 12(2) notice of LA Act 1894 was issued on 26.02.2014 and the Award amount was deposited in Court on 10.04.2014 in the name of a deceased person. With all these irregularities does not the authorities are liable for prosecution? The fabricated draft award is to be quashed & direct the State authorities to pass an fresh award as per provisions of New Land Acquisition Act 2013
In, Indore development vs shailendra ( Dead) , Indore development authority taken stand we have deposited compensation Amount in land acquisition office , but Land owner Refuse to accept , but actually facts are ——- no compensation amount deposited by Indore development authority in land acquisition office , related this acquisition . That is showing in land acquisition office statement date 30.06.2015 , ( I Received copy of statement Via RTI )
The January 2014 judgment appears to be fair. If a subsequent three member Bench unanimously – not 2 : 1, as in the present case – felt it needed reconsideration, without using the disrespectful phrase ” per incuriam “, it could have placed the matter before the CJI, requesting constitution of a larger Bench to rule upon the matter.
Exactly.The legislation is an outcome of a decade old effort of our bureaucracy.It has been revised more than 200 times during its making effort.This sort of criticism among judiciary about this legislation vied badly.Let us go with it for a decadeNothing will collapse.If required we may propose amendment through parliament.
భూసేకరణ వలన జీవనాధార బ్రతుకుతెరువు కోల్పోతున్న నిర్వాసితులు ఈదేశపవుఋ లే అనిగుర్తించాలి 1894.బ్రిటిష్ చట్టం స్వతంత్రO. వచ్చి 66 ఏళ్ళు గడిచినప్పటికిగాని స్వతంత్ర భారతచట్టాలు చేయకుండా ప్రజాధనం జీతభత్యాలు భోంచేసి సొంత వ్యాపారాలు సొంత ఆర్జనే చూ సుకొన్న 14 లోక్సభ లు అందులో పనిచేసిన .ఎంపీలు 5 4 5 X. 1 4 = 7430 మంది లోక్సభ సభ్యులు 245 X.11 =2495 మంది రాజ్యసభ సభ్యులు విీల్లు
దేశహితం పట్టించు కొంటే ఈ లావుండేదా పరిస్థితి ఇంకో ముఖ్యవిషయం భూనిర్వాసితుడు ఐ ఈ రెవెన్వే డిపాట్మెంట్ దుర్మార్గాలు ఫిష్ చేస్తే వేళ్ళకి తెలిసేది R.S =1.ఒక్క పొడిపేకెట్ మీద దాని M.F.D.మరియు కంటెంట్ ఎక్సపీరి డేట్ వున్నప్పుడు మా జీవితాలు ప్రభావితం చేసే భూసేకరణకు ఎందుకు లిమిట్ ఆఫ్ డేట్ ఉండదు చట్టాలు చేసే చట్టసభ సభ్యుల కాలపరిమితి 5 ఏళ్ళు చట్టానికి ఆమోదుముద్ర వేసే రాష్ట్ర పతి కాలపరిమితి 5 ఏళ్ళు ఐ నప్పుడు భుఎకరణకు ఎందుకు ఎక్సపీరిడ్ ఉండదు పెద్దలు అంత ఆలోచించండి
What will be the impact of the judgement dtd. 06-03-2020 of 5 judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (regarding land acquisition cases sec. 24(2)) , on the metters decided on 31-08-2016 of the same nature. Will the effect of judgement dtd. 06-03-2020 is retrospective or prospective.
What will happen of those cases which are decided on Ida reference by Arun Misra bench after 8 feb Ida judgement
I fully agree with Raju. Justice Mishra is definitely behaving like Govt Advocate. In the recent Bangalore development authority vs other and order pronounced on 3.8.2018 he became advocate of BDA and dubbed that there’s no time limit or reasonable time to complete preliminary notification formalities.
Further more he has asked BDA to notify all the land in Final notification that have been taken in preliminary notification. No public rehearsal under section 19.
Justice Arun mishra appearing like advocate of acquiring body. Referring to recent judgement given by him stating 2014 Pune judgement , Mishra Smartly shifted acquition in fevour of acquiring body. Simply twisted Simple and straight forward words like Deposit, Treasury , Paid, Payment and compensation. Blunder is he dared to state that all over india farmers who has not got compensation all of them refused to take compensation.
In SLP(C) No. 9798/2016 Indore Development authority Vs. Shyam Verma (pending adjudication) it is an interpretation of Sec. 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013 which is with regard to lapsing of acquisition where compensation was not paid or possession was not taken before 31.12.2013. But it was very much clear in implementing Sec. 24(1)(a) wherein the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013 are applicable with regard to determination of compensation where no Award was passed u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 before 31.12.2013. (Aligarh Development Authority Vs. Megh Singh & others Civil Appeal No. 4821/2016 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4282 of 2011 and also Allahabad High Court Judgment on Ishan International Educational Vs. State of UP & 3 others decided on 09/05/2017 under WRIT – C No. 60276/2015.
My property is acquired under the provisions of the State self Contained code for Land Acquisition. No Award was passed on or before repealed of the LA Act 1894. Kindly reply me weather I am entitled for payment of compensation under the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act 2013?
Major difference between award made and award paid , if the award amount is not paid in to the bank account that award should not be considered as the award paid hence new act should be applicable to ascertain the compensation award for such acquisition . whether the award amount was paid to the acquiring body or not that is immaterial ,
8 feb ki judgement ke anusaar yadi aap apne adhigrahan ko rokne ke liye court se stay letey hai to wo 5 saal ki awadhi me shaamil nahi hoga,kripya ye bataye ki aam aadmi court ke maadhyam se apna virodh nahi darj karayega to uske paas kya vikalp bachta hai,aam aadmi ke paas itna paisa nahi ki le de kar ya itni taakat nahi ki bahubal se prashaasan ko adhigrahan se rok de,aashcharya ye hai ki court khud hi kah raha ki mere paas mat aao,bada aascharya hota hai,aisi baat sun kar
जज भी आखिर सरकारी नौकर ही हैं,न्याय्धिस नही. इनकी नयुक्ति सरकार द्वारा , सरकार के लिए ही होती है.दीपक मिश्रा हो या अरुण मिश्रा या रविन्द्र भट ये सभी नरेन्द्र मोदी भक्त हैं.मैं स्वयं रविन्द्र भट द्वारा पीड़ित हूँ.
Using the word carelessness among higher judiciary in this country is unfortunate. Cases between bench vs bench is undesirable. It shows our judiciary is yet to develop.This RFCTLARR Act was drafted for a decade.The houses of parliament deliberately drafted this Act to meter out some benefit to the land looser who have been paid in pittance.The land owners were made to loose their crops for 3 to four decades due to acquisition.This loss who is going to compensate.Paying compensation as per 110 year old law is inhuman.Hence to give solace to the land owners this sec 24 (2) was inserted.On the basis of it the SG of I has also given explanation to the terms of this section.On the basis of these clarifications about 3000 judgments have been delivered by the SC and HC of this country.At this juncture some vested interest has initiated steps to dismantle this Act in such a way that farmers are continued to be looser forever in India.India do have scope only for development in all sphere.
In indore development vs. Shailendra judgment it has referred judgment of Aligarh Muncipal Corporation Vs. Megh sons at page 181. It is referred as ” where Award under sec. 11 of the said LA Act 1894 is not made then all provisions of this new LA Act 2013 is applicable with regard to determination & payment of compensation. Now the question lies as follows:
1. What happens when a land is acquired under self contained code of a state ( acquisition not under LA Act 1894) & meger compensation offered under consent, meger amount rejected, requested to pass an Award and Award is not passed as on 31.12.2013. A fabricated Award was drafted by SLAO & was passed by Deputy Commissioner on 24.02.2014 without following the provisions of the Act, 12(2) notice of LA Act 1894 was issued on 26.02.2014 and the Award amount was deposited in Court on 10.04.2014 in the name of a deceased person. With all these irregularities does not the authorities are liable for prosecution? The fabricated draft award is to be quashed & direct the State authorities to pass an fresh award as per provisions of New Land Acquisition Act 2013
In, Indore development vs shailendra ( Dead) , Indore development authority taken stand we have deposited compensation Amount in land acquisition office , but Land owner Refuse to accept , but actually facts are ——- no compensation amount deposited by Indore development authority in land acquisition office , related this acquisition . That is showing in land acquisition office statement date 30.06.2015 , ( I Received copy of statement Via RTI )
The January 2014 judgment appears to be fair. If a subsequent three member Bench unanimously – not 2 : 1, as in the present case – felt it needed reconsideration, without using the disrespectful phrase ” per incuriam “, it could have placed the matter before the CJI, requesting constitution of a larger Bench to rule upon the matter.
Exactly.The legislation is an outcome of a decade old effort of our bureaucracy.It has been revised more than 200 times during its making effort.This sort of criticism among judiciary about this legislation vied badly.Let us go with it for a decadeNothing will collapse.If required we may propose amendment through parliament.
భూసేకరణ వలన జీవనాధార బ్రతుకుతెరువు కోల్పోతున్న నిర్వాసితులు ఈదేశపవుఋ లే అనిగుర్తించాలి 1894.బ్రిటిష్ చట్టం స్వతంత్రO. వచ్చి 66 ఏళ్ళు గడిచినప్పటికిగాని స్వతంత్ర భారతచట్టాలు చేయకుండా ప్రజాధనం జీతభత్యాలు భోంచేసి సొంత వ్యాపారాలు సొంత ఆర్జనే చూ సుకొన్న 14 లోక్సభ లు అందులో పనిచేసిన .ఎంపీలు 5 4 5 X. 1 4 = 7430 మంది లోక్సభ సభ్యులు 245 X.11 =2495 మంది రాజ్యసభ సభ్యులు విీల్లు
దేశహితం పట్టించు కొంటే ఈ లావుండేదా పరిస్థితి ఇంకో ముఖ్యవిషయం భూనిర్వాసితుడు ఐ ఈ రెవెన్వే డిపాట్మెంట్ దుర్మార్గాలు ఫిష్ చేస్తే వేళ్ళకి తెలిసేది R.S =1.ఒక్క పొడిపేకెట్ మీద దాని M.F.D.మరియు కంటెంట్ ఎక్సపీరి డేట్ వున్నప్పుడు మా జీవితాలు ప్రభావితం చేసే భూసేకరణకు ఎందుకు లిమిట్ ఆఫ్ డేట్ ఉండదు చట్టాలు చేసే చట్టసభ సభ్యుల కాలపరిమితి 5 ఏళ్ళు చట్టానికి ఆమోదుముద్ర వేసే రాష్ట్ర పతి కాలపరిమితి 5 ఏళ్ళు ఐ నప్పుడు భుఎకరణకు ఎందుకు ఎక్సపీరిడ్ ఉండదు పెద్దలు అంత ఆలోచించండి