SUPREME COURT ORDERS ENQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGATIONS ON K.SHIVRAMA KARANTH LAYOUT- FINALLY THERE WILL BE ANOTHER LAYOUT


The Apex Court of India said that The Karnataka government and the Bangalore Development Authority are responsible for the mess in the city,  as it directed them not to drop acquisition of about 650 acres of land for the Dr. K Shivaram Karanth Layout.

The Apex Court further ordered an expeditious enquiry by the retired high court justice of Karnataka, Justice Keshavanarayana to submit the report and find out the officials involved in the denotification.

at last Dr K. Shivarama Karanth Layout will be a reality soon.

All the lands notified will be thoroughly scrutinised and a report will be submitted within 3 months to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court may take a decision of forming the layout.

 

ECO PACK ARTICLE IN 2014

Shivarama karanth layout land acquisition notification quahed

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday declared that the preliminary notification, issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 2008 to acquire land for the formation of Dr. Shivarama Karanth Layout, has “lapsed” as it was not implemented for several years.

Justice A.S. Bopanna passed the order while allowing petitions filed by land owners T. Ashwath Narayan, S. Rama Reddy and others from Ramagondanahalli and Veerasagara village of Yelahanka hobli. The BDA had on December 30, 2008 issued the preliminary notification identifying 3,546 acres of land situated between Doddaballapur and Hessarghatta roads to form 18,975 sites.

The court declared that the acquisition process, in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners is concerned, has “lapsed” as the BDA had neither declared the scheme for acquisition nor issued final notification for acquisition even after five years and 11 months.

The acquisition has “lapsed” due to non-implementation of the plan within a “reasonable” period.

The land owners had complained that they were deprived of peaceful enjoyment of their properties in view of the preliminary notification and failure of the BDA to consider their objections against acquisition even though they had submitted their objections soon after issuance of the preliminary notification.

Though the Chief Minister has announced that the Government would scrap its decision to acquire land for forming Dr Shivaram Karanth Layout, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is planning to initiate the process to obtain the government’s permission to issue a final notification for acquiring land for the layout.

An official said, “The State government has not issued any written order to the BDA to scrap the decision to form the layout. Moreover, courts have held in some cases that government agencies should complete projects within seven years of issuing preliminary notification to acquire land. If the land acquisition process is delayed further, we might have to face a lot of legal hurdles. Therefore, we are planning to issue a preliminary notification after obtaining the State government’s permission.”

In 2007, the State government had announced that it would form five layouts – Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, Dr Shivaram Karanth Layout, S Nijalingappa Layout, D Devaraj Urs Layout and K C Reddy Layout – around the city to allot 1.76 lakh sites to those willing to buy them.

In pursuance of the government’s order, the BDA has issued preliminary notification to acquire 4,814 acres and 15 guntas for Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout in May 2008 and 3,546 acres and 12 guntas  between Doddballapur Road and Hesarghatta Road for Shivaram Karanth Layout in January 2009.

In due course, the BDA issued a final notification for Kempegowda Layout and held a series of discussions with the land owners to fix the compensation for the land and agreed to pay a compensation ranging from `80 lakh to `1 crore per acre of the land besides giving one incentive site. The BDA also offered to give 40 per cent of the developed land for those who did not want the monetary compensation. The BDA issued the final notification for acquiring the land for Kempegowda Layout towards the end of 2009.

As land owners had filed over 12,000 objections to the acquisition of land for the Karanth Layout and held series of protests, the BDA did not proceed with the acquisition process. In June 2013, the Chief Minister had told the protesting land owners that the government would scrap its decision to form Karanth Layout and abandon the land acquisition process.

 

 

RECOVERY OF GOVERNMENT LANDS – PLAINT IN SUPREME COURT


A CIVIC ACTION GROUP HAS SUBMITTED A PLAINT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TO DIRECT THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE A LEASE OF LIFE TO THE INFAMOUS SPECIAL TASK FORCE FORMED TO CHECK THE ENCROACHMENT OF GOVERNMENT LANDS IN KARNATAKA AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATION AND RECOVER THE GOVERNMENT LANDS ON THE BASIS OF A.T.RAMASWAMY COMMITTEE REPORTS.

CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE – APEX COURT SUGGESTS FINE!


The Supreme Court has suggested that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be amended so that a convict in a cheque bounce case is made to pay a fine from which the complainant can be paid compensation.

 ”One other solution is a further amendment to the act so that in all cases where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of fine of an amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount and interest thereon, at a fixed rate of 9 percent per annum, followed by award of such sum as compensation from the fine amount,” said the supreme court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran (since retired) and Justice R.M. Lodha in a recent judgment.

 Speaking for the bench Justice Raveendran said: “This would lead to uniformity in decisions, avoid multiplicity of proceedings (one for enforcing civil liability and another for enforcing criminal liability) and achieve the object of Chapter XVII of the act, which is to increase the credibility of the instrument.”

 ”This is, however, a matter for the Law Commission of India to consider,” the judgment said.

 The judges said that the act “strongly leant towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation”.

 ”The courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9 percent per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation”.

 The supreme court said that the compensation by way of restitution on account of dishonour of the cheque should be “practical and realistic”.

 ”Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice,” the judgment said.

 ”In same type of cheque dishonour cases, after convicting the accused, if some courts grant compensation and if some other courts do not grant compensation, the inconsistency, though perfectly acceptable in the eye of law, will give rise to certain amount of uncertainty in the minds of litigants about the functioning of courts,” the judgment said.

 Citizens will not be able to arrange or regulate their affairs in a proper manner, as they will not know whether they should simultaneously file a civil suit or not.

 The problem is aggravated since in spite of provisions for concluding such cases within six months from the date of the filing of the complaint, these seldom reach finality before three-four years, the judgment said.

 These cases give rise to complications where civil suits have not been filed within three years on account of the pendency of the criminal cases.

 ”While it is not the duty of criminal courts to ensure that successful complainants get the cheque amount also, it is their duty to have uniformity and consistency, with other courts dealing with similar cases,” the judgment underlined.

 The court said this while dismissing an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s verdict that the trial court verdict of imposing fine and awarding compensation could not co-exist.

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY – PROPERTY DEALING – SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION – TAKE UTMOST CARE!


The Supreme Court observation on the sale of properties on General Power of Attorney:

The SC has clarified that it was only stating the well-settled legal position in this connection and not laying down a new law, the order was necessary because a good proportion of property sales have been affected through the GPA route of late.  The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday that transfer through general power of attorney (GPA) cannot give ownership title to the buyer will address a long-pending anomaly as far as property transactions in this country are concerned.

This has led to evasion of stamp duty and registration charges, causing losses to the public exchequer. It also has a great role to play in the circulation of black money in the real estate sector, which in turn has become a major avenue for investment and creation of unaccounted wealth.

The transfer of property through the GPA route has often seen genuine buyers being cheated since the same property can be sold to several parties, resulting in litigation, and, sometimes, crime.

SUPRME COURT OF INDIA HAS SUPRME POWERS TO DEAL WITH ILLEGALITY- THE BENCH


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA GOES SUPREME – 

THE BENCH WHILE DISPOSING OFF A SUIT SAID THAT The limits of power exercised by the Supreme Court when it chases injustice are the sky itself, when the ordinary law does not meet the demand of justic

“It is plenary power (SUPER POWER) exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the demand of justice. Article 136 of the Constitution is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power. It is extraordinary in its amplitude. The limits ofSupreme Court when it chases injustice are the sky itself,” said the Bench of Justice J. M. Panchal and Justice H. L. Gokhale.

The court further stated:

“The appellate power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with the ordinary appellate power exercised by appellate Courts and appellate Tribunals under specific statutes. The powers under Article 136 can be exercised by the Supreme Court in favour of a party evensuo motu when the Court is satisfied that compelling grounds for its exercise exist,” it said.

Justice Panchal said: “Where there is manifest injustice, a duty is enjoined upon this Court to exercise its suo motu power by setting right the illegality in the judgment of the High Court as it is well-settled that illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated and failure by this Court to interfere with the same would amount to allow illegality to be perpetuated.”

Rejecting the contention that the Supreme Court should not do anything which was not prayed for or challenged, the Bench said: “When an apparent irregularity is found by this Court in an order passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court cannot ignore substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with the cause pending before it. There is no reason why the relief cannot be and should not be appropriately moulded while disposing of an appeal arising by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

The Bench was of the view that the power under Article 136 “is meant to supplement the existing legal framework. It is conceived to meet situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law.”

The case

In the instant case, the appellant, A. Subash Babu, a police officer in Andhra Pradesh, was alleged to have entered into a second marriage by suppressing the fact of his first marriage which was in subsistence. Aggrieved, the second wife filed a complaint for offences of bigamy, suppression, cheating, dowry and cruelty. The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the charges of dowry and cruelty, holding that the second marriage was void but allowed other charges to remain. The present appeal was directed against this judgment.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the woman with whom the second marriage was contracted by suppressing the fact of former marriage would be entitled to maintain complaint against her husband under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. Further without any appeal against quashing of charges under Section 498 A, the Bench said it could order reopening it to render justice.

SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA SWAMY CURSE?


IT IS WIDELY BELIEVED THAT MR.T.P. SUNDERRAJAN, THE PLAINT AND THE MEMBER IN THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TO OPEN THE VAULTS OF THE SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE TREASURE IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN UNDER A `CURSE` FOR HAVING TAKEN THE MATTERS TO THE COURT AND THE OPENING UP OF THE GOD`S TREASURE.

THOUGH MR.T.P.SUDERRAJAN`S FATHER WAS A LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE ERSTWHILE RULERS OF TRAVANCORE ROYAL FAMILY, WAS LIVING WITHIN THE TEMPLE PERIPHERY FOR DECADES, TOOK AN NONRELIGIOUS STEP TO OPEN THE VAULTS PUT HIM IN MISERY AND ILL HEALTH. 

WAS IT A CURSE? WILL THE GOD CURSE HIS OWN WARDS/DISCIPLES? WAS IT OLD AGE THAT TOOK HIS LIFE? WILL THE `GOD` PUNISH HIS OWN WARDS ? are the questions lingering in the minds of the common man.

LITIGATIONS- LEASING OR RENTING THE PROPERTIES- APEX COURT`S OBSERVATION


LEASING/RENTING A PROPERTY- GET READY FOR LITIGATION- IF YOU ARE UNLUCKY

ARE YOU BUYING A PROPERTY TO LEASE IT/RENT IT- READ THE RECENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT

Supreme Court has said. ‘Civil courts’ failure to rein in unscrupulous litigants has caused lakhs of house owners not to rent out their premises for fear that tenants would not vacate these and resort to law suits. The court said the situation has come to such a pass because going by cost (risk)-benefit ratio, a person engaged in frivolous litigation finds it profitable in procrastinating the litigation.

It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan cities, because the owners are not certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated,’ said the apex court bench.  The deceitful acts of such litigants get aided by the reluctance of the courts to ‘order restitution and actual costs incurred by the other side’, the apex court observed. ‘Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrongdoers in our system,’ the judgment said.

Speaking for the bench, The Justice said: ‘It takes decades for the final determination of the controversy and the wrongdoers (unscrupulous litigants) are never punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem of this country.

The Apex Court, While Directing  the civil courts said not to grant ex-parte injunctions without hearing the other side, the judgment said that even if injunction had to be granted, it should be time-bound and for a short period.The apex court issued 10 commandants that the trial courts in civil matters must follow, both in letter and spirit, in dealing with such cases.

SRI ANANATHA PADMANABHASWAMY TEMPLE AND THE ROYAL TREASURE


IT IS ASSUMED/PRESMUED AND BELIEVED THAT THE INVALUABLE ROYAL TREASURE AT THE LORD`S ABODE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`S SRI ANANTHA PADMANABHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM  IS EXPECTED TO BE AROUND 1,00,000 CRORES.  IT IS WIDELY BELIEVED AND SAID THAT THE TREASURE HAD BEEN SAVED BY THE HONOURABLE ROYAL FAMILY TO TAKE CARE OF THE STATE DURING THE DISTRESS PERIODS LIKE DROUGHT AND FLOODS.

A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION LODGED AND THE TIRUNAL ROYAL FAMILY WAS A PARTY TO IT, WAS SUBJECT TO THE EXAMINATION AND THE ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, OPENED THE VAULTS OF THE FAMOUS LORD`S ABODE AND FOUND THE INVALUABLE TREASURE.

IF THIS IS THE CASE OF ONE ABODE, THE MARAUDERS WHO INVADED THIS HOLY LAND AND LOOTED THIS GREAT CIVILISATION, CULTURE AND THE COUNTRY, IS ANYBODY`S GUESS. IT WILL BE TRILLIONS OF TRILLIONS.

CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES: – IMPRISIONMENT IS NOT A MUST-SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


Imprisonment is not a must while punishing a person who issues cheques which bounce, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Kaushalya Devi vs Roopkishore. In this case, the drawer of cheques was convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, he deposited Rs 2 lakh out of Rs 3.5 lakh against the cheques. The magistrate felt that under that circumstance, fine would suffice and imprisonment was not necessary. He imposed a fine of Rs 4 lakh and allowed time to pay the balance. This order was challenged by the payee, but the Supreme Court agreed with the magistrate that jail sentence was not called for in this particular case.

Kaushalya Devi Massand Appellant versus Roopkishore Khore Respondent

Date of Decision: 15/03/2011

Judge(s): Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.

Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — section 138 — conviction under — quantum of sentence — in question — the ld. Magistrate viewed that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. The High Court confirmed the order of the ld. Magistrate, with an increased fine — the Supreme Court held no interference with the order of the High Court, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs — appeal partly allowed.

SC rules Parliament cannot make laws which violate the basic structure of the Constitution


SC rules Parliament cannot make laws which violate the basic structure of the Constitution 2010-09-18
The Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament does not enjoy unfettered powers to legislate and cannot make laws which violate the basic structure of the Constitution and the concept of rule of law cannot be permitted to be made subservient to the wish of the majority in Parliament.