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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more