Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.]
20 April 2014 at 13:50
The following is Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
7B. Arbitration of disputes. – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially or generally for the determination of disputes under the section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.
It appears to me that this is draconian provision not befitting a democratic republic.
This section was introduced as an amendment in the year 1959, full 9 years after the Constitution of India came into force.
Can anyone enlighten me what was the provocation in 1959 for this amendment? It may be available in the Parliamentary proceedings or in the Gazette notification then
RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
20 April 2014 at 13:26
Dear Sir, I rented one shop to open Ice Cream Parlor. My landlady is a widow of 55 yrs old and lives alone. She made a market complex outside her residence.She initially was soft and co-operative. We made an agreement and she assured me to help.
But just after my investment she had taken U turn and she refused to give electricity, regularly she threatens me to evacuate and even she calls police more often to put pressure on me.
Now my concern is that "Is their any way where court sends direction to the lady to settle all issues in front of the judiciary?" Because after this only I can prove my credential and prevent my investments.
Amanpreet Singh
20 April 2014 at 13:00
A Corner 10 acres of Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 in 1981 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken the award under protest. Government has given the land to a Private Party. And now the same land is still vacant from 33 years. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. The M.D. of the private party was died after 7 years of acquirement. And then a steel business man purchase the major shares of the private concern and stopped hotel business. Moreover, the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) in 1994 near about half of the land acquired from the back of the corner side, for a factory of Steel Rolling Mill which is still running. And also from the left side, private party has given 35 feet wide road as a way to an other unauthorized private colony plots.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4 or can say it is unused from front side of 10 acres.
The land owner had taken money under protest in 1982 and writ a petition under civil suit in 1994. The total 10 acres land acquired, was of 20-22 owners, out of which only 1 owner ( yet confirmed ) has a High Court petition. And after 6 years of writ in Aug, 2000 they have a compromise with the private party to whom the land was given by government.
That ' COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES STATE THAT WITHOUT INTENDING TO CREATE ANY PRECEDENT, THEY HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE BY MUTUAL COMPROMISE. PRIVATE PARTY COUNSEL STATE THAT LAND MEASURING 1.33 ACRES OUT OF THE LAND ( 10 ACRES ) IN THEIR POSSESSION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS. AND THE PETITIONERS SHALL REFUND THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 % PER ANNUM ( SIMPLE AND NOT COMPOUND ). THE HANDLING OVER OF POSSESSION AND THE PAYMENT OF MONEY SHALL BE SIMULTANEOUS. '
Actual, the petitioners land falls on the main road when the total 10 acres of land was acquired and now private party is giving asymmetrical land from the back side before the rolling mill which is not of the petitioners. Where as the petitioners are ready to refund the payment with interest.
Again CM was filled in 2001 for writ petition on 1996 which was decided in 2012, that nothing is mention in the compromise about the land.
So, how and which law will be implicated so that petitioners will get their original land or is it right way that petitioners will take other land instead of their own.
Dheeraj kumar
20 April 2014 at 10:30
Hi Sir/Madam
I am the owner of Flat in a gated community society but as i have my individual own house I have given that flat on the rent.
Last week there is an argument happened between my tenant and the neighbour (who is the owner of flat) related to parking which is not that much big issue.
But the owner of the other flat asking/called me and said that vacant your tenant as soon as possible, I said that please dont make it a big issue any how i explained by tenant not to argue with any one going forward.
But the owner of the other flat called me again and forcing me vacant your tenant otherwise consequence will be very bad.
But i dont think so its an big issue but owner of other flat making it big becaz of his big ego.
My question is, Can any one force me to vacant the tenant, what legal action my tenant can take suppose i told him to vacant the house.
Amanpreet Singh
19 April 2014 at 23:36
A Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken the award under protest. And now the same land is still vacant. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. Moreover,the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) near about half of the land acquired, for a factory of Rolling Mill.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4. Now, what law will be aplied for this matter, is it means the land will be returned to the original land owners and the owners will return the payment with interest or the land will be used for some other purpose decided by the government.
The land owner has taken money under protest and writ a petition under civil suit. The total 10 acres land acquired, was of 20-22 owners, out of which only 1 owner has a High Court petition. And have a compromise with the private party to whom the land was given by government. That ' Counsel for the parties state that without intending to create any precedent, they have settled the dispute by mutual compromise. Private party councel state that land measuring 1.33 acres out of the land ( 10 acres ) in their possession shall be given to the petitioners. And the petitioners shall refund the amount of compensation along with interest @ 15 % per annum ( simple and not compund ). The handling over of possession and the payment of money shall be simultaneous. '
Actual, the petitoners land falls on the main road when the total 10 acres of land was acquired and now private party is giving asymmetrical land from the back side which is not of the petitoners. Where as the petitoners are ready to refund the payment with interest. So, how and which law will be applicated so that petitioners will get their original land.
karuna arya
19 April 2014 at 17:09
We stay in builder flat total 6 flat 3 front 3 backside, we are on top floor. We 6 flats have 4 water tanks on roof. 2 assigned for front and 2 for backside. Being on top floor we were always facing water pressure problems. Thus we installed extra tank on our roof which is being supplied with water from the common tank. so it basically being used for storage / supply by separate pipeline only.
Now I have a question that do we require to pool extra for electricity? Because our point is that use of water is similar as when we were using from common tank. Now the only difference is that we are using water from separate tank instead using from common tank. Also to fill this additional tank we do not have to use extra Motor because this additional tank is being supplied with water from the common tank only. Installing of separate tank was forced decision as there was no water coming in our house when taps were being used in ground floor or first floor.
Lalit
19 April 2014 at 15:05
Hi Experts. I have a query regarding pagadi system. Before I start with the questions, a background of the scenario;
I have a pagadi system room in Vasai since 30 years. The room is in building worth 2 floors. Before a year, in one of the rooms, slab along with irons rods had fallen down and a child got injured. We all along with landlord got a notice to evacuate the building from Nagarpalika. After 1 month landlord gave us notice to avacuate the building. Questions;
1] When we evacuate the building and stay at some rented house, who will bear the expenses of rent till the building is reconstructed?
2] During reconstruction do we need to pay money for reconstruction ??? If yes how much ?
3] Landlord is offering rs 1 lakh per room and telling us to evacuate the building permanently.
4] Landlord is saying that the reconstruction may take 10-20 years ?? Is it corret/legal ??
5] Let say the building is reconstructed, when we go back in our rooms, do we pay the same rent as previous or there may be rise on rent ?
6] In pagadi system, what is the maximum % of rent that a landlord can increase?
Expecting replies from experts.
Amanpreet Singh
19 April 2014 at 12:39
Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken money under protest. But the same land is still vacant. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. Moreover,the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) near about half of the land acquired, for a factory of Rolling Mill.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4. Now, what law will be aplied for this matter, is it means the land will be returned to the original land owners and the owners will return the payment with interest or the land will be used for some other purpose decided by the government.
danny
19 April 2014 at 09:39
if the summons are not received or rejected by the defendants, what is the remedy AS REGARDS TO FAMILY PARTITION SUIT?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
N land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement
A Corner 10 acres of Land was acquired for the public purpose ( for making hotel ) under section 4 in 1981 and compensation was awarded to the land owners and land owners have taken the award under protest. Government has given the land to a Private Party. And now the same land is still vacant from 33 years. A little part of the land is constructed and said business is not working for many years. The M.D. of the private party was died after 7 years of acquirement. And then a steel business man purchase the major shares of the private concern and stopped hotel business. Moreover, the private party to whom the land was given by the government has taken CLU ( Change of Land Use ) in 1994 near about half of the land acquired from the back of the corner side, for a factory of Steel Rolling Mill which is still running. And also from the left side, private party has given 35 feet wide road as a way to an other unauthorized private colony plots.
So, the land is not used for said purpose as written in section 4 or can say it is unused from front side of 10 acres.
The land owner had taken money under protest in 1982 and writ a petition under civil suit in 1994. The total 10 acres land acquired, was of 20-22 owners, out of which only 1 owner ( yet confirmed ) has a High Court petition. And after 6 years of writ in Aug, 2000 they have a compromise with the private party to whom the land was given by government.
That ' COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES STATE THAT WITHOUT INTENDING TO CREATE ANY PRECEDENT, THEY HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE BY MUTUAL COMPROMISE. PRIVATE PARTY COUNSEL STATE THAT LAND MEASURING 1.33 ACRES OUT OF THE LAND ( 10 ACRES ) IN THEIR POSSESSION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS. AND THE PETITIONERS SHALL REFUND THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 15 % PER ANNUM ( SIMPLE AND NOT COMPOUND ). THE HANDLING OVER OF POSSESSION AND THE PAYMENT OF MONEY SHALL BE SIMULTANEOUS. '
Actual, the petitioners land falls on the main road when the total 10 acres of land was acquired and now private party is giving asymmetrical land from the back side before the rolling mill which is not of the petitioners. Where as the petitioners are ready to refund the payment with interest.
Again CM was filled in 2001 for writ petition on 1996 which was decided in 2012, that nothing is mention in the compromise about the land.
So, how and which law will be implicated so that petitioners will get their original land or is it right way that petitioners will take other land instead of their own.