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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more