I am unable to understand, why SC/HC is in so much hurry to give decision in favour of farmers. Is farmers the only party who is affected by this?
While giving the decision, why the so called Honerable SC/HC didnot even bother or consider to look at the > 1 lakhs buyers who has put there life long saving in these flats.

I donot know the whole laws of India, but know that while giving decisions by either SC or HC they much look at all the party who are involved in the case. But for this case SC/HC donot bother to look at the inocent buyers. I just can't believe that SC/HC donot know that how much buyers are involved in this case.
SC/HC just give the decision to return the land back to farmers, but what about those who are doing all these wrong I mean the authority. Not even a single person from the authority is held responsible by the SC/HC. If they are doing justice then why can't SC/HC give order to catch those authority persons who are involved in this and put them in bars.

Now after this decision, what is happening is that, even Noida farmers who has got there compensation 10-12 yrs back are showing there greedyness and asking for more money. Now what SC/HC do, do they also cancel the whole noida land and give back to farmers.

To concluce, this so called Honerable SC/HC, must also do some homework before giving any decision in favour of somebody.
Read more
Reply
21 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Originally Posted by sahni_prashant
    I will not feel sorry by writeing the "So Called honorable SC/HC". There should not be double standards in giving decision. As some one has written --
    "I would like to highlight that the construction of Askhardham Temple and Games village is actually on illegal land.. its a river bed.

    But when the case went to SC, it said that lot of development has taken place and it cannot be reversed. So a illegal construction become legal within one stroke..
    "

    What will some body say on the above decision. Also while giving decision why didnot court once think about the buyers.


    Askhardham Temple and Games village land was not owned by any person, so there was no effected party, unlike farmers in this case whose land was grabbed. So both cases cannot be compared
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by amarakbar
    Askhardham Temple and Games village land was not owned by any person, so there was no effected party, unlike farmers in this case whose land was grabbed. So both cases cannot be compared


    I am not comparing both cases, iam just saying that decision should be same for all cases now and in future also. Not that in one case it should be different and for other it should be different.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by sahni_prashant
    I am not comparing both cases, iam just saying that decision should be same for all cases now and in future also. Not that in one case it should be different and for other it should be different.
    SC upheld the HC decision in hurry definitely. No doubt about it.
    Protecting farmers interest is right decision but
    1) SC overlooked interests of flat buyers and left them at mercy of builders.
    2) SC did not punish GNOIDA authority who is solely responsible for this fiasco.
    CommentQuote
  • By going through land acquisition act following is clearly mentioned where I think courts have gone overboard in cancelling the whole acquisition rather than looking into specific cases where objections were raised. I am not a lawyer but i seriously doubt that courts are not politically motivated assuming representation from authority was made by a good lawyer.

    21. Restriction on scope of proceedings. - The scope of the enquiry in every such proceeding
    shall be restricted to a consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the objection.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by itismaddy
    By going through land acquisition act following is clearly mentioned where I think courts have gone overboard in cancelling the whole acquisition rather than looking into specific cases where objections were raised. I am not a lawyer but i seriously doubt that courts are not politically motivated assuming representation from authority was made by a good lawyer.

    21. Restriction on scope of proceedings. - The scope of the enquiry in every such proceeding
    shall be restricted to a consideration of the interest of the persons affected by the objection.

    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    So ? Here were 2 parties. Authority and Farmers. where is the problem ? Flat owners were never any party, So how is SC supposed to know of them.
    AS per lawyer, authority used best lawyers using whole lot of money - while farmers had a comparativelt very small lawyer.
    CommentQuote
  • CommentQuote