The Delhi High Court in Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs LT Governor decided whether the PIL filed is justified or not and looked into the fund’s misappropriation issue.
Facts:
The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and GHPS Society had mismanaged and misappropriated the funds and illegally removed the fund by conspiring with the members. They also run educational institutions the funds of which was also exploited by the member of the institute. The office members were involved in this misdeed.
Appellant’s Contention:
The plaintiff had filed a PIL to have a yearly audit of the entire accounts of the committee and society and provide appropriate guidance to the same due to the misappropriation of funds. It also asked to adhere to the appropriate sections of the DSG Act and a direction to conduct a Special Audit should be given.
Respondent’s Contention:
The only question which arose was that is the PIL filed by the appellant was acceptable and can this be heard in the Delhi High Court. The respondent also filled in small affidavits during the same.
Judgment:
The court said that the matter of misappropriation of the fund was already decided. The right to act on the PIL was with the district court and not with them. It also said that the PIL was not acceptable firstly because there are a given law, process,and procedures by the Chartered Accountants of India to carry out the audit function so deviation from it makes no point and secondly the Comptroller and Auditor General of India cannot voluntarily carry out an audit on its own when the laws exist for the same. The PIL was dismissed.
In any circumstances, the interest expense cannot be denied u/s14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Act. The disallowance made by adopting Rule 8D is not only opposed to the statutory requirement, but also to the legal principles established.
FACTS:
The case is an appeal by the petitioner against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which the court allowed the respondent’s appeal. The respondent filed a return for the income of Rs.358,47,29,328/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.431,48,93,079/- under section (u/s) 115JB of the I.T. Act. The AO made various disallowances u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D amount to Rs.5,11,85,000/-. The AO investigated u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act 1961. The case then went to The Ld. CIT (A) which allowed the respondent’s appeal but then the case went to the Hon’ble ITAT which again ruled in favor of the respondent.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
The petitioner contended on the previous orders by the courts given against his favor and asked if they were correct. He contended that “the assessment order that setting-off interest costs of dividend income against other taxable income areagainst the matching concept of income and expenditure. He submitted that there was no need to rely on any presumption of own funds on account of the changed law that came into force from 2007-08 followed by the introduction of rule 8D in 2008- 09 which provides for a method of calculations. It is submitted that because of the above, the ITAT erred in endorsing the CIT(A)’s order which drew the presumption of its interest-free funds. He further submitted that the ITAT ought not to have deleted the addition of interest disallowed by the AO, in the absence of any evidence that indicated that borrowed funds were not used to make investments that yielded exemption. He further submitted that the ITAT ought not to have been considered interest while calculating disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 5D since the assessee had not maintained a separate account for the investment related to exempt income.”
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The respondent took the court through previous orders and stated that they were correct u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) and prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In justification to his arguments, he took the help of the previous cases Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another and South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
JUDGEMENT:
The court stated that “To put it another way, in respect of payment made out of the mixed fund, it is the assessee who has such right of appropriation and also the right to assert from what part of the fund a particular investment is made and it may not be permissible for the Revenue to estimate a proportionate figure.” The court stated that the AO has not recorded that there was any inadmissible expenditure u/s 14A. He stated that there are no powers u/s 14(2) which allow AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessee’s claim in respect of expenditure incurred concerning the exempt income. The court further stated that the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) under any circumstances and therefore dismissed the appeal.
The judgment and order from the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated April 4, 2019, that overturned the Trial court’s orders by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being contested in the present case of MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus MAHENDRA JAIN.
FACTS:
Mahendra Jain was given a contract by the appellant company, M/s.Mita India Pvt. Ltd., for the relocation of a 33 K.V. electrical overhead line at its Dewas factory. The appellant company unintentionally paid an excess payment in connection with the aforementioned contract. The respondent sent two checks to the appellant company for its return after agreeing to refund the excess money. Cheques were returned due to “stop payment” instructions. By section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the appellant company filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas through its authorized representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli. Respondent made two petitions in the aforementioned complaint. – Kavindersingh Anand cannot testify in court because the complaint nowhere claims that he is aware of the facts and transactions, according to the first allegation that the complaint was not submitted by an authorized person.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the company’s authorized representative, submitted the lawsuit on behalf of the appellant company, according to a cursory review of it. Thus, the appellant corporation is filing the lawsuit under its name. It hasn’t been submitted in the power of attorney holder’s name. The appellant corporation, the complainant, is allowed to file the complaint on its behalf through the holder of its power of attorney. 10. The appellant corporation has granted Kavindersingh Anand, one of its directors, a broad power of attorney.
The aforementioned power of attorney was implemented following its proper approval by the board of directors at its meeting on May 1, 2010, which took place. As a result, KavindersinghAnand, one of the appellant directors, business’s is the true and legal representative of the company and holds power of attorney on its behalf. The aforementioned power of attorney expressly grants him the right to choose “counsel” or “special attorneys” to handle every case and to carry out any other actions necessary for the proper prosecution or defence of legal or fictitious judicial proceedings anywhere in the world. The power of attorney mentioned is based on the aforementioned power of attorney, Kavindersingh Anand gave Ripanjit Singh Kohli permission to file the relevant complaint.
JUDGEMENT:
The trial court denied the initial application in a ruling dated January 30, 2018. After the second application was turned down on July 23 of this year, a criminal revision was filed and later dismissed by a decision dated September 26. The respondent invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge these three orders. By the contested order, the High Court granted the petition brought under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed that the aforementioned orders be set aside because the complaint was not brought by the person authorized and that Kavindersingh Anand, who was granted the power of attorney, lacked legal standing to sub-delegate the said power to Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the designated representative. Second, Kavindersingh Anand is not authorized to testify on the company’s behalf.
The High Court of Delhi on Monday 20th February, 2023 in SHIWANG TRIPATHI & ORS versus UOI & ORS reiterated the stance taken by a learned Single Judge’s bench while dismissing the matter that a Right of Absorption or regularization of post does not arise merely because of an agreement of apprenticeship between parties.
FACTS:
The National Insurance Company had invited applications for an apprenticeship programme on a pan India basis and the candidates participating in the same were appointed for a term of 2 years which were later extended twice. Several recommendations were made in support of regularisation of these apprentices due to their excellent performances but the responsible authority did not act accordingly. That is when the present issue arose when these apprentices demanded regularisation of their post based on the agreement for apprenticeship that were provided to them.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The appellants tried to present the case in the manner that they were eligible according to the basic statistics that vacancies were open and their performances were at par with what the authorities shall ask and that is what made such absorption valid and legal.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The respondents tried to highlight the point that such right to absorption does not arise since the appellants were merely recruited for apprenticeship trainee purpose and no separate promise was made to them regarding any kind of conversion or regularisation of such a contract into one of a permanent appointment.
JUDGEMENT:
The primary issue was already dismissed by the learned Single Judge’s bench and nothing new happened in case of the appeal either. The honourable appellate bench by referring to Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. Vs. Dr.Vinay Kumar & Ors. [C.A.No. 4150 of 2022] clearly observed that no person or apprentice can claim a right to absorption or permanent employment, when they are devoid of any proper employer employee relation. By objectively pointing out the absence of a proper contract between the said parties the appellate bench reiterated the Single judge’s decision to deny the grant of such relief for regularisation and highlighted the fact that the respondents were not obligated to regularise positions just because someone has been an apprenticeship in the said organisation.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to the petitioner in the case of Rohit vs State of Himachal Pradesh while hearing the same on 20th February, 2023.
Facts:
Here the petitioner is a 28 year old man who is a permanent resident of Village Palsawan, Post Office, Chanog, Tehsil . He had been in a relationship with the respondent for the past three years. A FIR has been filed by her stating that the petitioner has been living with her and they had sexual relations repeatedly. But He refuses to marry her and had sexual intercourse by making false promises.
Petitioner’s contentions:
The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail against the FIR no. 33/23 filed on 6th January 2023. He’s been in custody since then. He pleaded that the girl has been maintaining the relationship for a very long time . He accepted that his parents are against their marriage due to their caste differences. But he claims that he never made false promises to her and she voluntarily made physical relations with him. He is a permanent resident of village Palswan and promises to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed.
Respondent’s contentions:
The learned additional advocate general opposed the plea for bail on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence. The investigation is under process and
He may try to mess with the evidence if he is granted bail.
Judgement:
The single judge bench after hearing both the parties , pronounced the judgement that the girl is mature enough to take decision when she indulges herself in any unwanted relationship. Also she has been in a relationship for so long. It would not be just if the petitioner is kept in custody for an indeterminate period. The apprehension that he may mess with the evidence, can be taken care of by putting certain terms and conditions on him. Hence keeping in view all the facts, the petition is allowed and bail is granted. However it will be subject to certain conditions which are :
He will appear before the court and investigation officer whenever required.
Will not threat or induce any person who is related to the facts of the case.
Will not mess with the evidences.
Will not repeat the offence.
Will not act in a manner which will delay the trial in court.
Will not leave India without the permission of court
The Investigation agency can move for quashing this order if the above said points are violated.
A crime committed against society at large that puts society’s safety at risk is known as public tranquillity or offense against society. It is not necessary that an actual offence is committed towards society, even an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or society, even if an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or the society that they are under the threat of an offense or an action by any person would result in an injury to them is necessary enough to constitute to an offense against the society. These offenses are usually committed by individuals in a group with a common object to hamper the peace of society.
How crime is defined by society?
The word society has been derived from the Latin word ‘ socius meaning association. Therefore, a society can be defined as an ‘association of people or people in a group who are related to each other by means of some common traits. While governing a society, the interests of the people are taken at large rather than depending on the needs and wants of one single person. The requirement of the people at large is considered. Different Legislations are not passed for different individuals, for one single society common legislation is applicable to them. A committed is defined as a crime only when it is wrong in the eyes of society.
If a particular act is not opposed by a group of people, then it can never be considered an offense. For example, trespass, money laundering, and bribery these acts wouldn’t be a crime if it was not wrong in the eyes of society. Therefore, what society thinks is important in defining a crime.
The foundation of a society lies in the maintenance of peace and morals. Therefore, chapter 8 of IPC has been framed to deal with those actions which would put society’s peace at risk. The offenses which put public safety at risk can be classified into rioting, unlawful assembly, affray, assembly of five or more people in a situation where dispersion has been ordered and promotion of enmity between different classes of people.
Analysis of crimes against the society
Section 141- unlawful assembly: Every person has the fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). However, certain circumstances given under section 141 of the IPC lead to unlawful assembly and it is considered a criminal offense. Any assembly which has been formed with 5 or more people with the intention to commit an unlawful offense is called an unlawful assembly. People in groups with a common intention and object to gather unlawfully and create a threat to the public peace is always dangerous. This is the main reason why unlawful assembly is criminalized. When an assembly gathered lawfully turns out to be aggressive and indulges in unlawful means, it will come under the purview of section 141 of IPC. The instances where there is a shift from lawful assembly to unlawful assembly is when the object of the assembly changes to resist legal proceedings, using criminal force against the state or any public servant, to committing trespass or mischief of the property of any person, to using criminal force against a person to make him do something against the law.
In the case P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police, Vepery (2021)[1], In this case, a group of advocates indulged in certain criminal activities like forcibly getting possession of certain properties, destruction of properties, etc., and therefore they caused the interruption in the peace of the society. The court charged them with the offense of unlawful assembly and took measures to curb such practices.
In the case of Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019).[2], dealing with the offense of unlawful assembly and the scope of section 141 of IPC was analysed. In this case, the cattle of the deceased jumped on the door of the appellant as a result exchange of words took place and the appellant started abusing the deceased after which an attack by a group of people took place, and eventually the deceased died. The appellant also sustained injuries during the attack and challenged before the court that he was unarmed during the attack and therefore he is not a part of the unlawful assembly. The court acquitted the accused.
Merely a person being part of an assembly that has indulged in an unlawful act is not enough, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the act, the people indulged also had the same object. Therefore, in the present times, section 149 is one of the most misused sections as it is difficult to interpret every person’s object in an assembly and there are chances of misrepresentations where an innocent person would be charged with a crime.
Section 146- Rioting: Rioting is dealt with under sections 146 and 147 of the IPC. Riot is similar to that unlawful assembly, and the only difference is the term violence. If an unlawful assembly starts to get engaged in any violent act, it will be known as a riot. Therefore, the ingredients of rioting are the same as that of unlawful assembly which is a common intention. Engaging in violence is always a threat to the harmony of society. It will affect the co-existence of society. . Rioting Is committed as a means to show the group’s intention to oppose the policies of the government, the outcome of any legislation passed or a judgment made, etc. Under most circumstances, grave and sudden provocation lead to riots. An act done in sudden provocation is considered a defense under IPC. But the impact of this act is so huge as it can even cause disintegration and heavy losses and damages.
In the case Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat (2019)[3], the appellant was a victim of gang rape that occurred during a riot in the year 2002 which came to be known as godhara train incident. She also lost her family during the attack. The Supreme Court in this case gave a compensation of 50 lakhs to the appellant under section 147 of IPC who was surviving with a daughter deprived of basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, etc.
Affray: Affray is usually committed by 2 or more people when they fight in public which disrupts the peace of society. The offense is committed in such a manner that there must be some sort of disturbance to the public arising out of the actions of the people engaging in the fight. For example, If one person comes and attacks another person by knocking him down in a private place, it does not amount to affray as there is no chance of the act disrupting the peace of the society. Punishment for the offense of affray is imprisonment of one month or fine or both. Punishment is less compared to rioting and unlawful assembly only because of the fact that the impact caused by the offense of affray is much less.
Section 153- Promoting enmity between classes. The outcome of a clash between different communities of society is huge. Thus, the need to criminalize the act of causing enmity was considered, and causing enmity between people belonging to different classes or different sections of society based on class, sex, religion, language, place of birth, etc. is considered a criminal offense. This section is wide in nature and consists of those offenses like moral corruption. The validity of this section has been challenged overtime on the basis that it is a violation of Article 19(1)(a) as it restricts freedom of speech and expression for any statement made which can create an enmity between communities. But the validity of this section was still upheld considering the fact that creating disruption among communities can lead to a threat to the country’s national security and sovereignty. Every person has the right to express their opinions through any means but there are certain restrictions laid down under article 19(1)(f) and promoting enmity is one such restriction.
In the case Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (2021)[4], In this case, the appellant through the means of the social media platform ‘Facebook’ posted writing representing the non-tribal group of Meghalaya, and therefore, he was charged under section 153A of the IPC. The court in this case analyzed section 153A of IPC and held that the main intention behind this section is to prevent any sort of act which would disrupt public harmony and create a threat to the nation’s sovereignty or national security. The appellant didn’t have any motive to create disturbances among communities by publishing the statement and it was just pleading for equality.
The concept of good faith plays an integral role to define the offense of promoting enmity. Actions that are done in good faith without a wrongful intention are always a defense.
Vinod Dua V. Union of India & Ors. (2020)[5], In this case, the petitioner filed for a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution. The petitioner was accused of creating a disturbance in society by making malicious statements against the prime minister and the government through his youtube channel for providing false information regarding PPE kits to the public. The Supreme court in this case held that the statement made by the petitioner was just a disagreement against the policies of the government and that won’t cause any disturbance to the peace of the society.
In the case Bijumon v. State of Kerala (2018).[6], In this case, the accused was charged under section 153A for publishing wrong information regarding a communal war between Christians and Muslims. The petition for anticipatory bail from the side of the accused was dismissed by the court as a such publication can result in putting the public peace in danger.
Recent developments
The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) by the Uniform crime reporting program, each offense reported where classified into offenses against persons, offenses against property, and offenses against society. Offenses against society are basically victimless offenses that put the safety of society at risk. Some offenses classified as offenses against society in the alphabetic order are animal cruelty, drug violations, gambling offenses such as betting or wagering, offenses under pornography or obscene material, prostitution offenses, weapon law violations, intoxication such as drunk and drive, family offenses, and trespass of real property.
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High court denied a bail application of a baba who was accused of raping a minor girl and stated that ‘rape is not just a crime against an individual it is a crime against society.’ Sexual assault against a girl would result in inducing trauma in the mind of any girl belonging to that society, not just the victim. The impact of the offense is something that must be overlooked. If the impact of an offense is on one single person it cannot be a crime against society. If a person is stabbed by his colleague during an argument it can never be a crime against society as the impact of the crime is on the victim only. But when the person has been murdered in a heinous manner, this creates a situation of fear in the minds of the people in the society too. The impact is not just on the victim or the family of the victim. It is collective in nature.
Similarly, a bench of Justices S A Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian made the observation that the practice of corruption by a public servant is an offense against the state or the society, and such cases cannot be dealt with under the suit of specific performances. The offense of corruption is of the nature that people in the society as a whole will start losing their trust in the government and other officials, as well as the rich or privileged section, would get an upper hand in the society. This might lead to the disintegration of the nation and society. Therefore, the impact is huge.
Conclusion
The public or society is considered the core of the country’s democracy, Therefore, any offense which is committed against an individual does not come under the purview of the chapter of IPC but it can disrupt public peace and is categorized as an offense against society. During the pandemic, there was a steady increase in the number of cases against society, especially through social media. A lot of wrong information about the spreading of covid 19 government policies was spread across the nation creating a situation that made society to be panic.
Along with the legislation and the laws brought in to tackle the offenses against society, the judgments passed in various cases are also an essential means to maintain public peace.
References:
P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police., SCC OnLine Mad 508.
Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2019) 4 SCC 620.
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat., (2020) 13 SCC 733.
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1209.
Bijumon v. State of Kerala., 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 11481.
Lexpeeps Pvt. ltd. is an organization that works to assist and help law schools in organizing and managing their events. We’re seeking to provide young and dynamic law students with a platform to experience the legal world in their academic capacities. We organize different events where budding lawyers can experience the legal world. With a self-directed educational strategy and the guidance of industry experts, Lexpeeps also provide you with the recent happening in the legal world in the form of news, opportunities where you can find what suits you the best, articles to explore your interests, and many more.
Lexpeeps Placement Cell established in 2021 operates with a vision to ensure maximum placement of students studying in different law schools across the country. The sole purpose of Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. is to provide law students and law schools quality and to create value for the legal fraternity.
Lexpeeps Xcell is an Initiative of Lexpeeps Pvt Ltd to bring the practical aspects of law subjects to the desk of law students via personalized and curated courses.
Lexpeeps provides you with internships, where legal experts and budding lawyers come in touch with each other and grow by associating with the company. Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. has taken an oath to ensure the right of the student and to help them in every possible way so that they reach immense heights of success.
“Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. thrives on commitment and creativity”.
Responsibilities and Duties:
Reviewing two legal news and preparing an analysis of the same on a daily basis
Drafting an analysis of one legal judgment per day passed by the apex court or high court
Analyzing weekly important judgments and key happenings
Eligibility:
The students currently pursuing their bachelor’s degree in law i.e., a 3-Year LL.B. course or 5-Year LL.B. course from any recognized university/college in India.
A student pursuing their Post Graduation.
Mode of Internship:
Online
Perks:
Internship Certificate on completion of the internship.
Best Research intern of the month award.
Discount on paid events organized by Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.
Publication on Lexpeeps blogs
Live session every Saturday/ Sunday for our interns to boost their legal researching skills. (Optional)
Stipend:
None
For Applying, send your updated CV and a sample write-up to newsstories.lexpeeps@gmail.com.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Lexpeeps Pvt. ltd. is an organization that works to assist and help law schools in organizing and managing their events. We’re seeking to provide young and dynamic law students with a platform to experience the legal world in their academic capacities. We organize different events where budding lawyers can experience the legal world. With a self-directed educational strategy and the guidance of industry experts, Lexpeeps also provide you with the recent happening in the legal world in the form of news, opportunities where you can find what suits you the best, articles to explore your interests, and many more.
Lexpeeps Placement Cell established in 2021 operates with a vision to ensure maximum placement of students studying in different law schools across the country. The sole purpose of Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. is to provide law students and law schools quality and to create value for the legal fraternity
Lexpeeps Xcell is an Initiative of Lexpeeps Pvt Ltd to bring the practical aspects of law subjects to the desk of law students via personalized and curated courses.
Lexpeeps provides you with internships, where legal experts and budding lawyers come in touch with each other and grow by associating with the company. Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. has taken an oath to ensure the right of the student and to help them in every possible way so that they reach immense heights of success.
“Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd. thrives on commitment and creativity”.
Responsibilities and Duties:
To research legal articles and draft an article.
To analyze different cases allotted.
Required Skills:
The Student should have good research and article drafting skills.
Must have relevant information about the allotted work
Eligibility:
The students currently pursuing their bachelor’s degree in law i.e., a 3-Year LL.B. course or 5-Year LL.B. course from any recognized university/college in India.
A student pursuing their Post Graduation.
Mode of Internship:
Online
Perks:
Internship Certificate on completion of the internship.
Best Research intern of the month award.
Discount on paid events organized by Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.
Publication on Lexpeeps blogs
Work Opportunity at Lexpeeps Pvt. Ltd.
Stipend:
None
For Applying, send your updated CV and a sample write-up to editorlexpeeps@gmail.com or fill out the form given in the link: https://forms.gle/ZCoEZhSZ8A8TQZVT7
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
K.P. Associates is a Multi-Service Law Firm delivering legal, regulatory and advisory services to its clientele. The Firm deals in all the major disciplines and works with clients ranging from global organizations, government and non-profit businesses, to micro, small and medium organizations, private individuals and entrepreneurs.
Their Firm is currently seeking highly qualified candidates to join our team of legal professionals. They are looking for dedicated individuals who are passionate about the law and are committed to providing outstanding legal services to their clients.
About Opportunity
As a member of their team, you will have the opportunity to work on a wide range of cases and legal matters. You will be responsible for handling legal research, drafting legal documents, and appearing in court.
Qualifications
At least 0-1 year of relevant legal experience
Strong analytical and problem-solving skills
Excellent written and verbal communication skills
Strong attention to detail and ability to multitask
Remuneration
Remuneration would be offered as per industry standards.
Application Process
If you meet these qualifications and are interested in joining our team, please submit your resume and cover letter for consideration to office@kpandassociates.in.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The recent case of Government of NCT of Delhi v Krishan Kumar was based on the Statement of Objectives and Reasons of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which discussed the “sacrifices” of the affected individuals who were “unavoidably” losing their property rights for the greater good of society. The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 aims to correct this unbalanced paradigm of development by making the land acquisition process more collaborative and facilitating.
FACTS:
Affirming that the acquisition of the disputed lands was deemed to have terminated in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner felt wronged and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in a Writ Petition.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
It was argued that since the petitioners did not assert that they had possession of the subject land in their writ petition but rather that the government was obligated to return the property to them, it was implied that they were admitting that the government had taken actual vacant physical possession of the land. The petitioners had complained about the lack of remuneration.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The High Court had granted the writ petition and stated that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is assumed to have expired under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, on the grounds that the compensation has not been paid.Regarding the action brought on behalf of the Act, the High Court made no findings, including that the beneficiary department was awarded immediate ownership of the disputed lands in question. As the entire land acquisition processes are regarded to have expired, it was the contention on behalf of the respondents that possession of the land is liable to be returned to the petitioners.
Indore Development Authority:
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “2013 Act”), which governs State land purchase, rehabilitation, and resettlement, was unclear in this case, but a five-judge Supreme Court bench had clarified it.The question in front of the court was whether land acquisition procedures may be terminated if the State failed to compensate landowners was a key concern. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was repealed in 2013, and the Court had to decide how that act interacts with it. This created complications.
In Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, the landowners argued that acquisitions undertaken in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had expired and that new procedures in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 were necessary.In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that cases still pending under the 2013 Act would have to be renewed and would expire under two circumstances.
The five-judge panel also held that landowners who rejected the offered compensation or asked for more money may not pursue compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act. However, if compensation is not given in accordance with Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, the proceedings will not be regarded as having ended, and compensation must be given in line with the Act of 2013’s rules.
JUDGEMENT:
The impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as it was observed to be unsustainable and so it deserved to be quashed set aside as a result of applying the law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case at hand.
As a result, the appeal was accepted. However, the court decided that given the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no judgement regarding costs, and any pending applications would likewise be dismissed.
