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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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