#Legal Opinion Lawyer in Coimbatore | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

iasshikshalove · 5 years ago

Text

Daily Current Affairs 07-March-2020

Today’s Important Topic’s For UPSC Preparation

1. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS 2018 ORDER ON LAND ACQUISITION.2. UKP PROJECT.3. WHEN LAWYERS REFUSE TO DEFEND ACCUSED, WHAT WILL BE THE LAW.4. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR.5. ZARDOZI.6. EPFO.7. FLASH DROUGHT.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS 2018 ORDER ON LAND ACQUISITION

Land Acquisition In India:

Land acquisition in India refers to the process by which the union or a state government in India acquires private land for the purpose of industrialisation, development of infrastructural facilities or urbanisation of the private land, and provides compensation to the affected land owners and their rehabilitation and resettlement.

Land acquisition in India is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR) and which came into force from 1 January 2014. Till 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is an Act of Indian Parliament that regulates land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in India.

The Act has provisions to provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, brings transparency to the process of acquisition of land to set up factories or buildings, infrastructural projects and assures rehabilitation of those affected.

The Act establishes regulations for land acquisition as a part of India’s massive industrialisation drive driven by public-private partnership.

The Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a nearly 120-year-old law enacted during British rule.

Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy.

Section 24(2):

States that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.

Difference of opinion between benches:

In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court, in the Pune Municipal Corporation vs Harakchand Misirimal Solankicase, held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to displaced farmers.

The judgment, which was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R.M. Lodha, M.B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, came as a relief for land owners.

However, in 2018, another three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Mohan Shantanagoudar declared the judgment in the Pune Municipal Corporatecase “per incuriam” in the Indore Development Authority vs Shailendra (D) Through LRS & Ors The judgment was delivered with a 2:1 majority, with Justice Shantanagoudar dissenting.

A judgment can be declared per incuriamif it does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. It literally translates to “through lack of care”. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force, and is then not treated as a valid precedent.

The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.

Reference to larger bench:

Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench comprising Justices M.B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta stayed the operation of the Indore Development Authority Justices Lokur and Joseph were part of the earlier bench that delivered the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment.

This bench directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court.

This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.

Why in News?

Land owners who refuse to accept compensation cannot press for cancellation of acquisition

SC said the benefit should go to land owners, agriculturists and not intermediaries.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra and comprising of Justi

ces Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Ravindra Bhat clarified that acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed only when government authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation.

A five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, held that landowners, who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

With this, the Constitution Bench has affirmed the February 2018 ruling on Section 24 by a three-judge Bench, led by Justice Mishra himself, in the Indore Development Authority case. The Bench has overruled an earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling in the Pune Municipal Corporation case of 2014.

UKP PROJECT

The Upper Krishna Project consists of construction of two dams across the river Krishna and a network of canals. The main storage is at Almatti Dam, a few kilometers downstream of the confluence of Ghataprabha River and Krishna river.

A lower dam, Narayanpur Dam, situated at Narayanpur a few Kilometer downstream of the confluence of Malaprabha river and Krishna river, will serve as a diversion dam.

The Project is planned to be implemented in different Stages and Phases.

Stage-I of the project plans to utilise 119 TMC of water to irrigate 4,25,000 Hectares

Stage-II 54 TMC of water will be utilised, to irrigate 1,97,120 Hectares.

The Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal – II passed an award for sharing of Krishna Water on 30-12-2010. The allocations made by Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal – II at 65% dependability and for surplus flows among three riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are under:

1Maharashtra81 TMC

2Karnataka177 TMC

3Andhra Pradesh190 TMC

Out of allocation of 177 TMC of water to the Karnataka State under KWDT – II, 130.90 TMC is the share of Upper Krishna Project Stage – III.

Why in News?

Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa announced Rs 10,000 crore would be earmarked for the implementation of the long-pending Upper Krishna Project (UKP) stage-III in 2020-21, and an action plan would be prepared.

UKP Stage-III would increase the height of the Almatti dam and allow for complete utilisation of state’s share of Krishna river water allocation.

To take up the all-important UKP stage-III and for resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of about 20 villages (that will be affected) for year 2020-21, Rs 10,000 crore would be earmarked and action plan prepared.

WHEN LAWYERS REFUSED TO DEFEND ACCUSED, WHAT WILL BE THE LAW

What does the Constitution say about the right of an accused to be defended?

Article 22(1) gives the fundamental right to every person not to be denied the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his or her choice.

Article 14 provides for equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 39A, part of the Directive Principles of state policy, states that equal opportunity to secure justice must not be denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and provides for free legal aid.

What has the Supreme Court said about such resolutions by bar associations?

In 2010, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra dealt with the illegality of such resolutions (A S Mohammed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu).

The 2010 case arose from a confrontation between a lawyer and policemen in Coimbatore in 2006, after which lawyers passed a resolution to not allow any lawyer to represent the police personnel. The Madras High Court ruled this “unprofessional”, after which lawyers appealed in the Supreme Court.

How are professional ethics of lawyers defined?

The Bar Council of India has Rules on Professional Standards, part of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette to be followed by lawyers under the Advocates Act. An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the courts or tribunals, at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case.

#ias #UPSC #Current Affairs #dailycurrentaffairs #current affairs quiz #CurrentAffairs #iasexam #Upscexam

0 notes