Baskaran Kanakasabai
24 September 2012 at 19:10
copy of text or web-link to text of any of the following required:
1.The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1987
2.Tamilnadu Registration Rules, 1983
3.Part II of the Fort St. George Gazette dated 28.6.1949.
It will be very nice of anyone who could provide any of the above-mentioned three documents.
Baskaran Kanakasabai
07 May 2012 at 20:35
I would lke to hear from any lawyer who has ever handled a case wherein registered alienation has happened after 4(1) notification of the LA Act, 1894.
Alternatively I would also like to hear from any person who has been deprived of his land under Land acquisition proceedings.
Kindly give me a call at 9444001884 or email to kbmadras@rediffmail.com
Baskaran Kanakasabai
07 May 2012 at 00:10
“Unconstitutional”
1. In the cases under the category “registered alienation after 4(1) notification” under the LA Act,1894( instances: 1.Wp 3031 of 2004 Bombay High Court. 2. JT 1995(6) SC 274., 3. 1996 AIR 540) the registered title holders of the relevant lands have been deprived of their respective properties.
2. This is in violation of article 300A of the Indian Constitution which says:
3[CHAPTER IV.—RIGHT TO PROPERTY
300A. No person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law.]
3. If the ‘law’ referred to in the above-mentioned section of the Indian Constitution includes, the LA Act, 1894( among other less applied Acts that involve land acquisition/deprivation of property), is it not absolutely essential that the person who is so deprived of his property under that Act, is without fail :
A) served a notice(u/s 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894) by the LAO, before such deprivation?
B) given a fair hearing of his view or objections( u/s 5-A of the same Act) by the LAO, before such deprivation.
4. If the above-mentioned argument is right, an analysis of any of the ‘000s of cases of “alienation after 4(1) notification” under the LA Act,1894, in the 118 year history of the Act, (like the instances as shown in the three above-mentioned citations) will reveal that the relevant person( the registered title-holder) in every such case has been deprived of his property, without being served a notice as per the Act and without being heard of his views or objections as per the Act.
5. Therefore my contention is that the deprivation of property of (almost)all persons in all cases of “alienation after 4(1) notification under the LA Act, 1894” is unconstitutional and therefore all judgments that enforce/d such deprivation should be declared unconstitutional and therefore void.
6. Invariably one can understand that it is a case of issuing a notice to Mr.X, hearing him and letting him go and years later sending Mr.Y to the gallows in place of Mr.X. My contention is that such sending MR.Y to the gallows without notice, inquiry/hearing is illogical & unconstitutional. (If the authority wants to hang Mr.Y, it should issue notice to him, hear him and if grounds for sending to the gallows are available still as per the Act, then it can send him to the gallows. That would be logical, legal and constitutional and there is no question or regret about it.)
... The full chapter is posted in the forum section.....
Baskaran Kanakasabai
29 April 2012 at 09:47
3[CHAPTER IV.—RIGHT TO PROPERTY
300A. No person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law.]
If the ‘law’ referred to in the above-mentioned section of the Indian Constitution includes, the LA Act, 1894( among other less applied Acts that involve land acquisition/deprivation of property), is it not absolutely essential that the person who is so deprived of his property under that Act, is without fail :
A) served a notice as per the same Act by the land acquiring authority, before such deprivation?
B) given a fair hearing of his view or objections, by the land acquiring authority, before such deprivation?
C) given a fair compensation for such deprivation?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to all the above-cited questions, and if any citizen of India is deprived of his property under pretext of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the acquiring authority adhering to none of the conditions a) to c), can such deprivation of property be termed unconstitutional?
Baskaran Kanakasabai
10 August 2010 at 22:23
Is income derived from export trade taxable in India?
If so, at what rate/s?
Baskaran Kanakasabai
07 August 2010 at 22:26
Acknowledgement:
My sincere thanks are due to the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the Honourable Deputy Chief Minister of Tamilnadu and the officials of the relevant departments for the assuring action taken by them from yesterday onwards. About 140 land owners referred to in the case-in-study in part 1 of my presentation, have received individual letters from the TN Government, with the intimation that their petitions are being directed to the relevant departments for necessary action. Probably this is the first batch of intimations.
Baskaran Kanakasabai
01 August 2010 at 12:07
Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala,* Senior Advocate
President, International Council of Jurists (www.internationaljurists.org)
Chairman, All India Bar Association (www.allindiabar.org)
Chairman, India Legal Information Institute (www.indlii.org)
Senior Additional Advocate General of Govt. of Haryana
Additional Advocate General of Govt. of Punjab
has replied that he has received my communication regarding the presentation titled" The Flaw in the Law" and that he will respond in due course. His reply is received with due thanks.
Baskaran Kanakasabai
29 July 2010 at 22:52
Acknowledgement
Hereby I convey my sincere thanks to the Hon.President of India, and the President’s Secretariat, for having performed the necessary and the crucially expected functions of directing the relevant authorities to do all that is required to correct the flaw reported in this presentation to ensure justice to the people affected by the flaw and to ensure that no one is affected in future as well.
I convey my sincere thanks to the Government of Tamilnadu , the Hon. Chief Minister of TamilNadu and the Hon.Deputy Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, although I am not aware of as to how things exactly moved up, down or across the government hierarchy and caused the intended positive changes sought by me in respect of the issue show-cased in the presentation.
I acknowledge receipt of the letter from the Law Department of the Tamilnadu Secretariat which confirms the receipt of the petition from the President’s Secretariat Office, New Delhi by them in respect of my presentation and their directing of the matter to the revenue department for necessary action .
I convey my sincere thanks to the Law Department of the Tamilnadu Secretariat and the Joint Secretary to the Government in this regard.
Baskaran Kanakasabai
18 July 2010 at 23:08
There appears to be a rough(if not perfect) correlation between the Global Peace Index and the countries which do not prescribe for the compulsory registrability of notification under LA in comparison with the countries which have such prescription in place.
Refer:http://economicsandpeace.org/WhatWeDo/GPI
and compare with the Registrability tables I have uploaded in the files section.
Your views please!
Member Strength 9,46,531 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Clarification
In the judgment of the following case:
Supreme Court of India
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (2), 549 1996 SCALE (2)418
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.
the sentence quoted below forms an essential part:
"Section 12 [3] of the Act itself exempts registration of the land acquired under the Act."
Can anyone provide the text of that particular sec.12(3)?