Land acquisition act 1894 relevance of section 9(4)

Sir,

What is the implication if the Land Acquisition Officer does not serve the individual notice to the Land owner under Section 9(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?

Is India even now to be treated as Bengal Presidency in which Land Acquisition Act was sought to be implemented?

Can the State Government acquiring Land of the Soldiers and others not residing in the boundaries of the said State be held to be justified and legally correct by the mere Publication of the Notifications under Section 4 and 6 in the regional Newspapers and in the Gazette of the State Government?

Is the Law really blind and paraplegic as the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is still be applied in the spirit of the Nineteenth Century in India and amended during emergency when the Right to Property was taken off and of the eighties when the Land of the farmers and soldiers was to be gobbled up for SEZs.

Is there no Lawyer in the Country and or no Judge who may ask the State Government acquiring Lands to give wide publicity to the Notifications of Acquisition in the manner that all land owners or their relations come to know of it and at least file objections /

Is there any legal remedy for a Soldier/ Civil Servant whose residential piece of Land was acquired by Notifications under Section 4 and 6 published in the regional Newspapers and Gazette of the State in 2007 and 2008 and award made in 2010 of which the Soldier was not even informed under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act/

How long should the said Soldier keep corresponding with the State Government to get reply as to why was he denied the opportunity of hearing under the circumstances and why was he not served Notice under Section 9(4) of the Land Acquisition Act/

If he files the Petition will the first Petition not go waste as the Hon’ble Court would ask the state to consider and reply to the Petitions of the Soldier made from 2010 onwards?

Can the soldier ask for relief in the form of the de-notification of his residential plot on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court in which the Notifications under Section 4, 6 and Award qua the plot adjacent to the plot of the Soldier , falling in the same Khasra and Khatauni been quashed by the Court in the Judgment dated 5.5.2011 9 for which the soldier has been requesting the state Government to give him the relief?
The said Judgment can be read from the follwing link
http://lobis.nic.in/phhc/casetype1.php?scode=28&fflag=1

Karnataka backword class reservations

here is intresting in karnataka reservation i cant conclude that under 3B reservation i have seen 1(a) veerashaiva lingayat and 1(b) lingayat sub castes so on what is the difference between the 1(a) and 1(b) in 3B category antbody from karnataka plesae help me

below list of karnataka 3B list :

CATEGORY-III(B)
Sl.No. Name of the Caste Sl.No. Name of the Caste
1 (a) Veerashaiva Lingayath (f) Kulavadi
(b) Lingayath Sub-groups of Helava,Ambiga,Bhoyi, Gangamatha,Sunagara,Agasa,Madivala, Kumbara,Kuruba, Bajanthri,Bandari,Hadapada, 2 (a) Maratha,Marata (c) Kadri Vaishnava
(b) Are Kshatri,Are Maratha, Arya Maratha (d) Sameraya
(c) Arya,Aryaru (e) Sattadaval
(d) Konkan Maratha (f) Sattadavan
(e) Kshatriya Maratha (g) Vaishnava
Sd/-
D.M.AGA
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare Department.

Farmers or farming schemes issues

ANY ADVOCATE LIKE TO SUPPORT FARMERS OR FARMING SCHEMES FOR DEVELOPING RURAL AREAS OF OUR COUNTRY.MOSTLY FARMERS DONT KNOW HOW TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ANY DEPARTMENT .IF YOU LIKE HELP PLEASE MAIL OR CALL US.KISSAN CULB.AJAI SINGH.09012067551. ajairana@sify.com..

Ips limited examination

Sir,
I am serving army officer and is interested in the above exam which govt have held for state police officer,cpos and armed force officer with 35 yrs of age.

As a background the following are fact-
1. As per Army rule,a permanent commission officer can only be eligible if he supersedes.Selection Board take place in 15 yr of service.EVEN IF COMMISSIONING AGE is 20 yrs as in case of Ex NDA.offrs.they will be eligible only at age of 35 yrs.

2. In case of short service officer,he can apply for civil employment at the last 6 months of final yr of his agreement.Now SSC is for 10 yrs.Average age is 24 yrs when SSC offr get selected and 25 at time of commission.In this case also he is not able to write exam as he is turning 35 yrs.

IN BOTH CASES OPPORTUNITY IS BEING DENIED TO ARMY OFFICERS EVEN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO WRITE EXAM BY GOVT BECAUSE OF AGE.

SECOND issue ,
is pertaing to cut off bench mark of age which as per Ministry of home affair rule is 1 aug.

The CPO offrs age is considered on aug bench mark during initial recruitment before writing departmental exam for IPS.

Howeever army recruitment is held twice in yr with jan and july as benchmark.Person selected in Jan written and ssb subsequently join academy for training in month of september that year and person selected in july exam in month of april next year.

My querry is
1. Can a case be taken up for relaxation of age for subject exam to 36 yrs from 35 yrs keeping the service condition of army officers.

2. If not,atleast a case can be taken up to MHA to reduce benchmark from 01 aug of that year to 01 jan of year,so as to enable officers of army to write exam at least one.

At least they should not be denied the right of equal opportunity viz a viz officerrs of CPO as the part OF MHA and following aug bench mark and army lossing being on differnt rule and using jan as bench mark.

PLEASE SOLICIT ADVISE AND RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION.

Clarification

Kindly refer to my query below.
Sir,

I would like know why the GoI Rules and Orders shall be published in the Gazette of India. If any rule or order might have not been published in the Gazette, would it not get legal validity.

What is the difference between the rules and orders that had published in the Gazette of India and not published in the gazette. What law says in this regard.

Kindly refer to my query that had replied by you which had given below for you refernce. IN this regard the GoI notified rules are hereby attached for you examination and after go through, my request below may be replied once again.

Thanking you sir,

Sir,
I want to know that the New contributory Pension Scheme had been introduced w.e.f. 1-1-2004 with an issuance of Ordinance by President of India and the same is valid for six months only. No legislation had been made by the Parliament. Then what is the legal validity of that scheme? Can we challenge the legal validity of the new pension scheme in the court of law for application of old pension scheme to the employees who recruited from 1-1-2004 to date. If, yes. In which court we can challenge? CAT/High Court/Supreme Court. Kindly give a suggestion including the relevant apex court judgments, if any.

Thanking you sir,

Srinivasa rao
9700816574





Expert : PS Dhingra, dcgroup1962@gmail.

PRO CHAT CALL



Posted about 18 hours ago

I don't think the Government is so forgetful that it cannot get the ordinance replaced through passage of a bill by the Parliament. If you are so sure you can definitely challenge the same in the SC. But better seek the information through RTI before you take such an action.

Fcra section 9 of contribution (regulation)act 2010

Respected senior / expert members of the forum
My client is a church base NGO ( Nan governmental organization) they have 3 FCRA account , Deputy Secretary Govt. of India Ministry of Home affairs hereby prohibits, is one FCRA account by order, thought the Section 9 of Contribution (Regulation)act 2010, Could they use other two FCRA account for receiving the grant amount from donor agency, if yes under which section or rule/act or any notification by government . please guide me how can the receive grant . Alternatively, you may give your feedback to me on skhoware@yahoo.co.in or my cell 09422816019

Thank you very much

With Regards

Advocate

S.L.Khoware
Nagpur

Csd , urcs , private ventures

URCs are Private Ventures.CSD is a solely owned govt enterprise but govt of India though bleeds to provide this extraordinary facilities to the private ventures a meagre 50 % only passed onto CFI. Look at the post below:-

:Turnover of Defence Canteens

Turnover, Profit and Profit distributed to beneficiaries after depositing 50% in Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) of Canteen Stores Department (CSD) during the last three years, year-wise, is as under:-

(Rupees in Crore)

Profit distributed to beneficiaries

2007-08 84.44

2008-09 6955.11, 203.69 101.84

2009-10 8689.80, 226.53,113.26

2010-11 9534.29

Annual accounts for this period are under finalization.

"As per laid down policy, 50% of the total profits earned by CSD is being deposited into Consolidated Fund of India (CFI). The remaining 50% is distributed to various beneficiaries as determined by the Competent Authority. As per policy in vogue, after deduction of regular and adhoc allocations of 4.91 % of this amount, the balance is allocated to Army, Air Force and Navy in the ratio of 85:10:5.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in written reply to Shri Ram Krjpal Yadav and Shri Shadi Lal Batra in Rajya Sabha today."
Would somebody except those who thinks they are for the poor and needy people only please help me to get a copy of the " As per laid down policy 50 % of the total profits-----" as quoted by the Def Min of India. I have tried through RTI route but denied invoking JAG Army letter which has inferred that URCs are private ventures , not instrumentality of States and hence not covered by RTI Act 2005. That huge sums of money ( ours and yours money) for the past fifty years is going into pockets of some private individuals who are not accountable to either OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE/CAG , Defence Audit . It is a serious matter. And I need help.

Defence a1 land

In broad day light a huge new construction on a Defence A1 land in one of the Army Unit at Secunderabad is going on without any approval , sanction of Plan . On my query under RTI Act on the issue I am now intimated that the great new construction on the Defence A1 land of that Military Unit is mere a modification to the already existing UNIT REGIMENTAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION and hence required no approval of its building Plan by anybody. It is also intimated that expenditure is being incurred from the donations received from the devotees and hence no approval was necessary to undertake such a huge new construction . On my query with respect to the construction company undertaking the huge construction on the Defence A1 land , the answer was - No construction company has been engaged , it is being done on votultary work , may be KAR sEVA , they are referring too. Is that in order?

Wildlife protection act 1972

Dear Experts,

This query is to get your independent opinions regarding Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 visa vis Arms Act 1959 and fundamental rights. Wildlife Protection Act 1972 can be read at http://envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html

My position will be that arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 supported by reasoning put forth in following links and High Court judgements as well as but not limited to doctrine of precedence, natural justice, strict scrutiny etc.:

1) Judgements of High Courts http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15639

2) http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp

I want to establish Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 to be unreasonable, superfluous and ultra vires.

Following is the zist of my reasoning:

Section 34(1) and (2) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 are putting unreasonable, unnecessary and needless burden on arms license holders when arms are already well regulated under Arms Act 1959 and information about all arms license holders in the area is already present with the District Magistrate.

Liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. Liberty includes not be be put under unnecessary, unreasonable burden, harassment or insult. Arms licenses or exemptions from licenses are issued to law abiding citizens by following the due process of law and putting all of them under unreasonable burden and suspicion amounts to treating them like criminals is affront to them and their Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Chief Wildlife Warden without any reasonable suspicion asking all arms license holders to line up at his office under Section 34(1) and (2) of of Wildlife Protection Act 1972, amounts to insult and harassment of arms license holders.

If he ever has credible evidence about violation of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 with help of arms against any person, he is anyways free to request information related to arms license from the District Magistrate or file a case in appropriate court of law.

Moreover since arms are a fundamental right, the Chief Wildlife Warden can safely assume that since arms are fundamental right, every citizen who is not barred by law from possessing arms, is in possession of arms. Section 34(3) is ultra vires and superfluous since arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution and hence every citizen unless disqualified under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 is entitled to keep and bear arms as per law. Where is the need to require concurrence of Chief Wildlife Warden when there is already a provision for police report about the arms license applicant?

Charitable hospitals and profit motive

WE ARE NOTICING THAT SEVERAL OF NGO'S ARE TAKING FREE LAND,GENEROUS TAX EXEMPTIONS AND RUN HOSPITALS,NOMENCLATURED AS CHARITABLE HOSPITALS.IN ACTUAL PRACTICE THEY RUN THE HOSPITALS ON PROFIT BASIS SIPHONING EARNED PROFITS THROUGH VARIOUS METHODS TO PERSONAL POCKETS. THE RATES OF MANY OF THESE HOSPITALS ARE NONE LESS THAN CORPORATE HOSPITALS. THEY EMPLOY ONLY THOSE DOCTORS WHO GENERATE PROFITS FOR HOSPITAL. RECENTLY I NOTICED ONE ADVERTISEMENT IN TIMES JOBS.COM OF BMCHRC JAIPUR FOR POST OF DIRECTOR.IN DESIRED SKILLS THEY HAVE CATEGORICALLY ASKED 'TRY TO RUN ALL COST CENTER OF BMCHRC AS PROFIT CENTER" MANAGEMENT HAS FORGOTTEN BASIC COMMITTMENT TO SOCIETY. GUIDANCE IS SOLICITED FROM LEGAL LUMINARIES OF LAWYERS CLUB. MY DESIRE IS FIGHT THESE SOCIAL MALPRACTICES .THESE ARE CONTROLLED MUCH CONSISTENTLY PRIOR TO CONTROL OF TOTAL CORRUPTION BY ANNA HAZARE

Browse By Category

• Business Law - 3586
• Civil Law - 14526
• Constitutional Law - 1780
• Criminal Law - 12284
• Family Law - 9095
• Labour & Service Law - 5307
• Legal Documents - 3025
• Intellectual Property Rights - 737
• Property Law - 12379
• Taxation - 3766
• Students - 2116
• Others - 8876