Skip to main content

Right to property is a human right, HC says

Noting that right to property is now a human right, the Madras high court has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to disburse compensation amount to an octogenarian woman, whose lands were acquired for the road widening project near Tambaram.
Justice S Manikumar, pointing out that Siriyapushpam is now more than 80 years old and that the NHAI had not paid any money in lieu of the lands taken over from her more than five years ago, said: "As right to property has been now recognized by the apex court as a human right, and considering the age of Siriyapushpam, her legitimate right to seek compensation for the lands acquired, this court sincerely hopes that the authorities would implement the directions of this court in letter and spirit within the stipulated time."
Siriyapushpam's land measuring 165sqm at Irumbuliyur villager near Tambaram was notified for acquisition by the NHAI in 2008 for widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH45. As she was not given any compensation for more than five years, she filed the present petition alleging NHAI's failure to award her compensation or use the lands for the purpose which it had been acquired for.
NHAI's counsel S Prasanna informed the bench that an administrative sanction for Rs 43 crore had already been issued. The state government's additional government pleader, on his part, said the special district revenue officer (land acquisition) would determine the amount for disbursal to persons concerned. He also requested the court that a specific time limit may be fixed for completion of the process.
Justice Manikumar, stipulating that necessary compensation amount should be deposited not later than one month, said persons such as Siriyapushpam should receive their compensation as expeditiously as possible therafter. He also directed the additional government pleader to communicate the court's orders to the authorities concerned for 'prompt implementation'. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more