Decode Ballistic Reports Like a Pro. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

arunsharma   31 December 2014 at 12:07

Service compensation

Respected Sir,
I want to know what is service compensation. Is this mandatory to pay ?
Waiting for answer.

meena jain   31 December 2014 at 10:59

Acqusition made under r.a.i.p act compensation not paid can we claim quashing of acqusition

good morning to all of you here sir,
i need your urgent advice on this matter of land acquired in xxx act of 1952 so called R.A.I.P act of 1952 land lying vacant not used for the purpose acquired in year 1953 and compensation not paid till date..sir we were fighting for fair compensation and after we found the misuse of land and public purpose challenged in arbitration proceedings and intend to file a writ in high court as per arbitrator direction now i wud like to know what shud be my plan of action challenge acqusition proceedings or claim compensation as per the new amendment in the land acqusition act as requsition and acqusition of immovable property act which was kept outside of this act including other 13 acts has been brought under one umberella and compensation and rehabilitation wud apply same on this requsition and acqusition of immovable property act also so seek your expert opinion sir i am ready to pay your professional fees i need expert quidance sir below is the detailed fact sheet of the case.


FACT SHEET abt land acquired in r.a,i,p act 1952 compensation not paid yet.

Dates
Events


The Claimants were owners of freehold plot of land situated at Marol Village bearing No.R.S.140/3, 140/9, 141/12, 141/16 admeasuring about 7511 ¼ sq.ft. (hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said property”) and were enjoying the peaceful possession of the said land till the year 1942.
01.07.1942
Respondent No.3 vide its Order No.WAR 26 and exercising the powers conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 75A of Defence of India Rules, read with Notification of the Government of India, Defence Coordination Department No.1336/OR/1/42 dated 25.04.1942 requisitioned the said property of the Claimants and directed to deliver the possession of the same to Military Estate Officer subject to certain terms and conditions.
09.04.1953
Respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”) vide Notice No.WAR 26, 31, 61 and 180 compulsorily acquired the said property.


As a dispute had arisen between the parties with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimants, Respondent No.1 referred the matter to Arbitration and under Section 8(1)(b) of the said Act Mr. M.M. Shah was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitration case was numbered as 5/1960.
09.08.1964
Arbitrator decided the matter and the Award made therein came to be filed before Junior Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay.


Aggrieved by the Award passed in Arbitration proceedings, the Claimants preferred an Appeal against the Award before Hon’ble High Court at Bombay being Appeal No.183/1966 challenging the decision of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on various grounds.
17.10.1974
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court was pleased to allow the Appeal and was pleased to set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator, Mr. Shah and further held that the Government will have to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act for determining the compensation to be payable to the Claimants. If the parties fail to determine the compensation, then in that case, Central Government shall appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated in Section 8 of the said Act for determining the quantum of compensation to be paid to the Claimants.


There was an inordinate delay on part of the Respondents in complying with the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966. The Claimants pursued the matter diligently. However, the Respondents failed to discharge their duties as provided under the said Act.
24.07.1981
The Claimants sent a letter through their Advocate calling upon the Respondents to comply with the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966.
15.01.1982
Officer of the Respondent No.3 after many months replied thereby informing the Claimants that he has forwarded a copy of the said Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966 to the Asstt. Engineer, Airport Maintenance, Sub-Division II, IAA-I, Mumbai and was awaiting reply for initiating further action on the part of Respondent No.3.
18.10.1982
The Officer of Respondent No.3 asked the Claimants to file a compensation claim in respect of the land acquired to enable his office to take further action in the said matter.
07.06.1985
The Officer of Respondent No.3 vide its letter to Asstt. Director of Town Planning called upon him to submit Valuation Report to enable him to fix the compensation in accordance with the directions given by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966.


In between there was no response from the Respondents for almost 6 years and there was no progress made for fixing adequate compensation to be paid to the Claimants.
18.09.1991
The Claimants through their Advocates again reminded the Respondent No. 3 about the compulsory acquisition of the said property, Arbitral proceedings and the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966 and thereby called upon the Office of the Collector to pay compensation as directed by the Court and to take further steps towards the same.
29.10.1991
The Officer of Respondent No.3 in reply asked for the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and further asked the Claimants to state the purpose for which the said property was acquired to enable his office to issue the instructions to the particular Special Land Acquisition Officer.
10.06.1998
The Special Land Acquisition Officer asked the Claimants to supply Notice or a copy of the Award or receipt of handing over possession sent by his Department and any communication made by his office relevant to the matter implying thereby that he had not been able to locate the papers in the said matter.
03.04.1999
The Claimants’ Advocate by his letter communicated the necessary details relating to the acquisition of the said property in question to Respondent No.3 and the Asstt. Town Planning Officer of the Special Land Acquisition Office.
18.06.1999
The Officer of Respondent No.3 asked the Revenue Officer of Respondent No.2 for its remarks upon the Valuation Report prepared by Asstt. Director of Town Planning Department and further informed the Claimants that the Respondent No.2 was responsible for inordinate delay occasioned and the said matter is pending for early payment.
09.07.1999 & 22.11.1999
The Claimants through their Advocate sent reminders bringing to the knowledge of Respondent No.2 that the matter has been delayed due to inaction as pointed out by Respondent No.3.
20.12.1999
The Officer of Respondent No.3 further sent a reminder informing Respondent No. 2 that the matter of compensation payable to the Claimants has been delayed at the latter’s end and the papers asked for by the Respondent No.2 had already been forwarded to the Respondent No.3.
14.01.2000
The Senior Land Manager of Respondent No.2 informed the Claimants that the compensation payable in respect of the said property was being paid by Land Acquisition Officer / Collector and that the Respondent No.2 was not in charge of the same. Further the Claimants are advised to approach State Government for the payments.
03.06.2000 & July 2000
The Claimants informed the Senior Land Manager of the Respondent No.2 that the State Land Acquisition Officer required the Agreement between the owner of the land acquired and the Acquiring Body so that compensation could be paid to the Claimants.
05.07.2000
Respondent No.2 directed the Claimants to approach concerned Land Acquisition Officer of the State Government.
30.09.2005
As enormous delay was caused in the matter, the Claimants were constrained to send another legal Notice to the Respondents through their Advocates requesting them to pay compensation within 15 days of the receipt of the Notice, failing which, they will be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings against the Respondents. However, to the shock and surprise, neither of the Respondents replied to the said Notice nor did they take any steps towards the payment of compensation to the Claimants.


As all the remedies were exhausted by the Claimants and the Respondents miserably failed to discharge their duties, the Claimants were forced to file a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No.182 of 2006 praying for compensation to be paid to the Claimants in accordance with the Order dated 17.10.1974 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183 of 1966.
31.03.2006
By Order of Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed the Respondent No.3 to decide upon the quantum of compensation within 8 weeks therefrom and communicate the same to the Claimants. Further it was directed that if the parties fail to come to the agreement about the quantum of compensation, the Respondent No.3 would refer the matter to Respondent No.1, who would within a period of 8 weeks thereafter appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act to adjudicate and decide the quantum of compensation to be paid to the Claimants.
19.04.2006
The Officer of Respondent No.3 passed a very cryptic order and proposed to pay to the Claimants a paltry compensation for the acquisition of the said property at the rate of Rs.3.60 per meter thereby total amount of compensation awarded was Rs.22,308.30 and solatium at the rate of 15% of the compensation i.e. Rs.3,346.25 was also offered to be paid to the Claimants. The total compensation offered to the Claimants was Rs.25,654.55.
05.05.2006
The Claimants through their Advocate replied addressing to the Secretary to the Government of Revenue and Forest Department and Respondent No. 3 stating that the proposed compensation amount was not acceptable on the grounds contained therein.
11.07.2006
The Director of Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, communicated to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) that the Claimants were not agreeable to the compensation amount, which was offered and/or proposed by Respondent No.3 and therefore, requested for appointment of an Arbitrator as directed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
20-12-2012
The Claimants have in the Arbitration proceedings realized and observed that the lands acquired belonging to the Petitioner are lying vacant and remined unsued for the purpose it was occupied.
In the arbitration proceeding, Claimants have by way of amendment has sought for de-notification of lands and also for return of lands back to the petitioners as the Petitioners lands are not used for the purpose of Extension of Santacruz Aerodrome, Mumbai in the the alternative to pass an Award in favour of the Claimants for Rs.1,88,000/-, Rs.5,59,90,660.45 & Rs.1,68,53,598.13 in lieu of the market value of the said property in the year 1953 with the interest and solatium on the said compensation from the year 1953 till the date of Award.
20-3-2014
The Ld. Arbitration Tribunal has passed an order directing the Petitioners to get an order for the relief’e of de-notification of lands and also for return of lands back from High Court by filing appropriate proceedings/writ petition for the same.


In the facts, circumstances and under law it is abundantly clear that towards Petitioners land no compensation and award is passed since 1953 till date and also that the lands acquired belonging to the Petitioner are not used for the public purpose of extension of santacruz aerodrome and therefore there is frustration of public policy, Petitioners are entitled to claim back for return of lands illegally acquired by the Respondent for Airport authority.

so we intend to file a writ in mumbai high court for quashing of acqusition proceedings also as now the new land acqusition law has been amended and requsition and acqusition of immovable property act 1952 so called xxx act of 1952,which was kept outside of this act has been brought under this act umberella for compensation...so we whould challenge acqusition proceedings or claim compensation also please suggest us good counsel and advocates in mumbai awaiting eagerly for your valuble suggestions sir,u can also reach me on goldenfish26@gmail.com regards n god bless truely yours meena n rakesh jain
















stefen Ronald   31 December 2014 at 10:40

Rti act 2005

Sir,
I need some examples to file 1st appeal and 2nd appeal. please provide detailed steps and procedures.

Nagaraju Musini   31 December 2014 at 10:40

Job opportunities available on mba+llb

Sir I want to know job opportunities available on mba with llb. Give me that suggestions please.
My mail id musininagaraju@gmail.com

AJAY KUMAR DAS   31 December 2014 at 09:28

Time limitation from lower court to appelate forum

Dear sir, the facts is I am the plaintiff(grand son ) before sub-judge court filed a suit for partition and permanent injuction against my deacesed grandfather ancestral properties now which is order in-force(statusquo) but simultaneously my nephew has filed earlier suit aginst the same self properties and same self parties for partition and permanent injuction at before addl. sub-judge, but in between they all collusively/amicably filed a compromise petition on mega lok adalat day on these properties but earlier I had filed u/o1 rule 10 at before addl.sub-judge but the order of the hon'ble addl. sub judge was son's interest will be protected by his father as father is the defendant at this so ther is no necessary of his son to this u/o-1 rule 10 hence rejected. simultaneously on lok adalat day I had filed a review petion u/s 114 order 47 rule 1 through proper misc. case with cause title with a new discovery that as defendants has omitted 4 plots in there compromise stating that it has been sold amicably but the true fact is during pendency these properties has been sold. we had submitted the "EC" following dates which properties been sold. now the ops advocates raised question that this review petition is not admitable u/o114 r47, so please help me regarding citations or if we move to appellate forum how many days will lower court provides times according to any citation or decisions or circulars, please help me.

ADVOCATE TRILOK   31 December 2014 at 08:43

Amendment of criminal appeal.

Accused in cheque bounce case is convicted by lower court.

Earlier advocate in hurry to get conviction suspended filed appeal in session court without any proper study of the case so inp pleadings have been left unstated.

Now whether the new advocate can file amendment to the criminal appeal by incorporating the left imp defense pleadings.




Praveen Kumar   31 December 2014 at 08:41

Cancel poa

Sir my father was into one agreement to do the construction in 2010 and unknowingly signed POA and agreement to another just after 3 month. This comes to our notice in 2014. now i want to cancel the 2nd agreement POA and agreement as it was done without my father concern who is 65 yrs old and i stray away from my fater so the 3rd person did all wrongful act without my father concern.now 1st builder want his compensation and second builder is not ready to do the fresh agreement with mutual understanding. if i cancell POA with second builder which is registered what is my loss and benefit.

498A-filed   31 December 2014 at 08:19

Breaking of bail bond

Dear experts,

My wife was arrested as the police executed the bailable arrest warrant issued by the trial court in a private criminal complaint case filed by me on her u/s 406 IPC & 138 NI.

She was released on bail bond and PR bond by the concerned police station on condition that her adv. will present her before the court on or before the next court date. & the PS informed the concerned trial court in writing and it is in the court records,

My wife failed to appear before the trial court and subsequently an NBW is pending against her.

I want to know from the experts, whether there is any provision under the law to take action against the person who has taken her suriety or against the accused who broke her bail bond conditions.

rahulkumar   31 December 2014 at 06:55

trademark domain

I have registered one website domain . In that domain one word is registered trademark of a big reputed company.
They mailed me to transfer the domain name to their name.
I denied in transferring and I told if you want give me a job in your company.
They went to Delhi High Court and registered a case against me under CS (OS)
What is CS(OS)
Please guide me to proceed further.
Thnx

pradeep chaudhary   31 December 2014 at 02:57

Cersai charges

dear sirs,
i would like to know what is cersai charges in home loan.
and bank can take cersai charges from borrower even the loan is not disburshed.

and if cersai charges is due for the payment for particular loan account and loan amount is not disburshed then what it means.

i request you to reply please.

thanks to all in advance.