Skip to main content

Mandatory procedures not followed in acquiring Singur land

The Supreme Court today quashed the acquisition of 1000 acres of land in Singur by West Bengal’s Left Front government in 2006 for Tata’s Nano project concluding that it was “illegal” and proceeded ahead in “violation of law”. Civil rights organizations, several of them backed by present chief minister Mamata Banerjee, had moved the apex court challenging the acquisition. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the quashing of Singur Land Acquisition Act brought in by the Mamata government by the Calcutta high court. Mamata government also became a petitioner later challenging quashing of the Act. A bench of justice V Gopala Gowda and justice Arun Mishra while pronouncing the judgment directed that the land be given back to farmers in 12 weeks. Though the Judges agreed on conclusion, differed on the question whether the land acquisition was  for public purpose or not . Justice Gowda, held that  the acquisition of land by taking it away from the farmers cultivating it cannot be said as a “public purpose”, but Justice  Mishra held that the acquisition was ultimately for the public purpose. Significantly the bench ruled that the farmers who got compensation from the government need not have to return it because “they were deprived of their livelihood for the last 10 years”.

SC had repeatedly told senior lawyers who had appeared for the company “You cannot argue that they (farmers) have accepted the award so they cannot challenge the acquisition. This case is under different footing and there are several issues which needs to be answered.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-scraps-land-acquisition-tatas-car-plant-wb-slams-procedure-adopted/

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-scraps-land-acquisition-tatas-car-plant-wb-slams-procedure-adopted/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more