Blow to Mamata as HC nixes Singur Act

June 23, 2012
mamatha

Kolkata, June 23: The Calcutta High Court on Friday held the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, “unconstitutional and void.”

The Act was the brainchild of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhury observed that the Act was unconstitutional and void since “sections of compensation in the Singur Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the legislation had been enacted without obtaining assent of the President.”

The judgment is seen as a major blow to Banerjee. Earlier, a single bench of the Calcutta High Court, headed by I P Mukherjee, upheld the Act on September 28, 2011.

Tata Motors had subsequently moved the division bench challenging the verdict.

“The Single Bench had no jurisdiction to fill up loopholes left by the legislature,” Justices Ghosh and Chaudhury said.

The Bench observed that “though the single judge had awarded compensation on the basis of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, but the court had no power to insert, rewrite or reframe the Singur Act and the part dealing with compensation is not sustainable.”

The court, however, gave the state government two months time to appeal to the Supreme Court, but barred it from disbursing the reclaimed land in the interim period.

Trinamool Congress MP and government counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay said: “The judges were also confused. So they had given a two month period for appeal which is rare. The state government would now definitely move the Supreme Court against the judgment.”

The Left Front government in West Bengal had leased out 997 acres to Tata Motors at Singur in Hooghly district for the Nano car factory.

While 645 acres were allotted to the company, the rest were given to the vendors.

Following mounting opposition by local farmers, led by the Trinamool Congress, Tata Motors shifted the factory to Sanand in Gujarat citing law and order issues, but kept possession of the land.

After coming to power, Banerjee scrapped the lease to Tata Motors, triggering a legal battle between the automobile giant and the government.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 12,2020

New Delhi, Jun 12: India's COVID-19 tally on Friday witnessed its highest-ever spike of 10,956 cases, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

396 deaths have been reported due to the infection during the last 24 hours.

The total number of coronavirus cases in the country now stands at 2,97,535 including 1,41,842 active cases, 1,47,195 cured/discharged/migrated and 8,498 deaths.

COVID-19 cases in Maharashtra continue to soar with the number reaching 97,648. Tamil Nadu's coronavirus count stands at 38,716 while cases in Delhi reached 34,687.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 11,2020

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
August 8,2020

Kozhikode, Aug 8: A tailwind or crosswind could be the reason for the Air India Express flight mishap at Kozhikode international airport in Kerala, according to some aviation experts. 

Team of DGCA and AIE already reached the spot. With the death of the captain and co-pilot in the mishap, the investigation would be focusing mainly on the voice recorders and other technical aspects.

It is learnt that the ill-fated aircraft, IX 1344 with 190 onboard including crew, was initially planning to land on runway-28 of the airport. But later the pilot opted runway-10 which is toward the other direction. Pilots would be taking the decisions on the basis of inputs from ATC.

The questions now doing the rounds are what made the pilot opt runway-10 and whether the tabletop runway lacked adequate safety parameters.

An aviation expert, who didn't want to be quoted, said that Capt Deepak Sathe, who was commandeering the aircraft, was a well-experienced pilot and was also familiar with the terrains. Hence the chances of any error from his part was very unlikely. Hence a fair in-depth probe was required to find the exact cause.

Though the Kozhikode airport has an Instrument Landing System, it was of category-I for which pilot's visibility is very crucial toward a touchdown. Since it is a tabletop airport and rough weather prevailing in the region, the chances of tailwind was also high, said sources.

There had been safety concerns about the airport over quite some time. In 2011 aviation safety consultant captain Mohan Ranganathan reportedly gave a report citing the safety issues, especially the buffer zones at the end of the runway.

However, an AAI officer said that rectification steps were already done by last year by widening the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) from 90 metre to 240 metre. However, the length of the runway had to be reduced to 2,700 metre from 2,850. The AAI was also constantly pressing for increasing the runway length to 3,150 metres. But that was getting delayed due to land acquisition issues pending with the state government.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.