SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., G.L. OZA, J.
Writ Petn. (C) No. 7715 of 1985, D/- 4-2-1986.
Karjan Jalasay Yojana Assargrasth Sahkar Ane Sangarsh Samiti, Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat, others, Respondents,
Social Activist or Judicial Magistrate – Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents has strongly pressed that interim order of stay passed by us should be vacated since possession of land acquired by State Government is required to be taken immediately as area is going to be submerged by reason of construction of a dam across river Karjanand unless possession of land is taken it will not be possible for State Government to proceed with construction of dam appreciate anxiety of State Government to take possession of acquired land – Court are also aware that land has been acquired for an important public purpose – But at same time we cannot overlook human problem arising out of displacement of large number of tribals and other persons belonging to weaker sections on account of acquisition of land – Held, Government will be entitled to take possession of acquired land subject only to aforesaid conditions. Shri Hari Vallabh Parekh will immediately proceed to nominate a Social Activist who shall carry out assignment mentioned above. Whatever costs charges and expenses are incurred by Social Activist or Judicial Magistrate shall be borne by State Government and for this purpose State Government will deposit a sum of Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla within one week from today – Shri Hari Vallabh Parekh will, as soon as he nominates a Social Activist communicate name and address of such social Activist to Collector of Bharuch so that Collector can give intimation to such social activist to remain present with officers of State Government who will go for taking possession of any part of acquired land – Stay vacated.
Judgment
P. N. BHAGWATI, C.J.I. :- Mr. M. N. Shroff , learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has strongly pressed that the interim order of stay passed by us should be vacated since possession of land acquired by the State Government is required to be taken immediately as the area is going to be submerged by reason of the construction of a dam across river Karjanand unless possession of the land is taken it will not be possible for the State Government to proceed with the construction of the dam. We appreciate the anxiety of the State Government to take possession of the acquired land. We are also aware that the land has been acquired for an important public purpose. But at the same time we cannot overlook the human problem arising out of displacement of large number of tribals and other persons belonging to weaker sections on account of acquisition of land. We are, therefore, of the view that the interim stay may be vacated but subject to the following conditions : -
If any person in possession of acquired land or any part thereof is to be dispossessed of the land in his or her occupation it shall be done only in the presence of a Social Activist nominated by Shri Hari Vallabh Parekh of Anand Niketan Ashram or the Judicial Magistrate of Rajpipla and such social activist or Judicial Magistrate will maintain a record of the names and addresses of the occupants of land who are thus dispossessed and will also enquire into and ascertain as to how long such persons have been in occupation of the land.
2. The State Government or its officers who intend to take possession of any part of the acquired land will give at least seven days notice to the social activist nominated by Shri Hari Vallabh Parekh and to the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla so that as least one of them can remain present at the time of taking possession and possession can be taken in his or her presence.
3. The social activist or Judicial Magistrate in whose presence possession of any part of the acquired land is taken shall note down the nature and condition of the land before possession of it is taken.
4. Simultaneously with taking possession of the acquired land from any person in occupation of it, such person shall be provided either alternative land of equal quality but not exceeding three acres in area and if that is not possible, then alternative employment where he would be assured a minimum wage. Such alternative employment shall be provided to the head of the family whether such head be a man or a woman, the family to be taken into account being one consisting of parents and minor children. No possession of any part of the acquired land shall be taken from any person unless and until he is either provided with alternative land or alternative employment which is not temporary in character so that he and the members of his family do not remain without means of subsistance the only exception being where the person concerned has already got or acquired other land to cultivate in which case payment of compensation would be enough, if for any reason the State Government is not able to provide alternative land or arrange for alternative employment the State Government will subject to the same exception, pay to the head of the family at the latters place of residence compensation equivalent to minimum wage everyfortnight during the period alternative land or employment is not provided.
5. If any person who is dispossessed of any part of the acquired land in his occupation has his dwelling on such land and in consequence of taking possession he is deprived of such dwelling, the State Government will, simultaneously with taking possession of such land, provide alternative dwelling to the person who is dispossessed, so that the person dispossessed should not be without roof over his head even for a single day.
6. The amount representing compensation in respect of the part of the acquired land of which possession is taken as aforesaid, shall be paid within
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.