For the information of all.

I went through the entire document, since this is probably the first supreme court judgement I have actually read in its entirety.

Eye opener on how our judiciary functions. Impressive.

Also, the latter half clearly explains why public purpose and urgency clause is justified in this case and the clear deficiencies in NOIDA extension where the same public purpose and urgency clause was overturned by high court and also by the same supreme court which delivered this judgement as well.

Application of mind and clarity of purpose should be demonstrable - that seems to be the essence of this judgement

(With thanks to the person who sent it to me.)
Attachments:
Read more
Reply
10 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Judgement is dated September 2010, not in 2009 (that is high court)
    CommentQuote
  • Where were you Venkytalks!! Offlate have not see you active in the forum.... Glade to see you back...
    CommentQuote
  • very well said! but that time 2 dimesnion were not there....
    first the media Hue & Cry & Secondly Congress agenda behind all this....

    Believe it or not.... these factors ( Central Govt. factor)affect the decision of courts now a days...
    CommentQuote
  • document is really long, can someone please write the bullet point if possible.

    thanks

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    For the information of all.

    I went through the entire document, since this is probably the first supreme court judgement I have actually read in its entirety.

    Eye opener on how our judiciary functions. Impressive.

    Also, the latter half clearly explains why public purpose and urgency clause is justified in this case and the clear deficiencies in NOIDA extension where the same public purpose and urgency clause was overturned by high court and also by the same supreme court which delivered this judgement as well.

    Application of mind and clarity of purpose should be demonstrable - that seems to be the essence of this judgement

    (With thanks to the person who sent it to me.)
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    For the information of all.

    I went through the entire document, since this is probably the first supreme court judgement I have actually read in its entirety.

    Eye opener on how our judiciary functions. Impressive.

    Also, the latter half clearly explains why public purpose and urgency clause is justified in this case and the clear deficiencies in NOIDA extension where the same public purpose and urgency clause was overturned by high court and also by the same supreme court which delivered this judgement as well.

    Application of mind and clarity of purpose should be demonstrable - that seems to be the essence of this judgement

    (With thanks to the person who sent it to me.)

    thanks venky..does that mean that JPSI plots/flats are safe from current negative developments...
    I today read that farmers of 4 JPSI villages are going to high court next week..pls follow the link below..

    The Pioneer :: Home : >> Now agitating farmers raise dust at F1 track

    Guys pls let me know your views on the earlier supreme court judgement and recent plans of farmers..

    thanks
    param
    CommentQuote
  • Judgement is based on interpretation ... interpretation of context, evidences, and facts .... Now interpretation greatly depends on articulation...

    Shall I say more about articulation? Jugad is also an articulation, pressure is, calculation is and so on.

    Let me explain it with a classic example

    ******************************
    Jack and Max are going to a Church for religious service. Both are regular smoker and Jack wonders whether it would be all right to smoke while inside the church.

    Max replies, "Why don't you ask the Priest?"

    So Jack goes up to the Priest and asks, "Father, may I smoke while I pray ?"

    The Priest replies, "No, my son, you may not! That's utter disrespect to our religion."

    Jack goes back to his friend and tells him what the good Priest told him.

    Max says, "I'm not surprised. You asked the wrong question. Let me try."

    And so Max goes up to the Priest and ask something.

    To which the Priest eagerly replies, "Sure, sure. By all means, my son. By all means. You can always."

    Max comes back to his seat and lights a cigarette.

    The priest look at Max, nods and smiles. Max continue enjoying his cigarette.

    Jack was completely surprised... could not hold any more and ask Max what happened.

    In reply Max said, nothing special, I just asked the permission in a different way .... how?





    "Father, may I pray while I smoke ?"
    CommentQuote
  • Jaypee land in Noida

    Thanks Venky, I have read the judgement. I have following observations.

    Jaypee wishtown land in noida (sec 128, 129,131,134) was given to jaypee at very low lease rent as part of deal to build the yamuna expressway (One of the five townships). If you check out the Noida 2021 plan, all of these sectors were classified as residential sectors. So Noida authority already acquired them for residential purpose. It was handed over to Jaypee as part of concessionaire. Jaypee paid to UP govt for the acquisition cost of the land at wishtown Noida and will pay Rs 100/hectare as lease rent.

    We are clear about the purpose.

    Few lingering questions

    0) Is this judgement applicable to Wishtown. Noida land as well ?
    1)if Noida authority raised Urgency clause when it acquired Wishtown land from farmers ? Did it hear the objections from Farmers.
    2) Are there any farmers who have not accepted the compensation for wishtown, Noida land ?
    3) In the judgement it was clear that Jaypee will return Expressway land to UP govt after 36 years, What will happen to 25 MN sqft land acquired for Townships ?
    4) The new land acquisition bill that govt is proposing ... will it have any bearing on the Jaypee projects. We all know Shah Bano case, Govt enacted new law against Supreme Court judgement to appease minority community.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by trojanhorse
    Thanks Venky, I have read the judgement. I have following observations.

    Jaypee wishtown land in noida (sec 128, 129,131,134) was given to jaypee at very low lease rent as part of deal to build the yamuna expressway (One of the five townships). If you check out the Noida 2021 plan, all of these sectors were classified as residential sectors. So Noida authority already acquired them for residential purpose. It was handed over to Jaypee as part of concessionaire. Jaypee paid to UP govt for the acquisition cost of the land at wishtown Noida and will pay Rs 100/hectare as lease rent.

    We are clear about the purpose.

    Few lingering questions

    0) Is this judgement applicable to Wishtown. Noida land as well ?
    1)if Noida authority raised Urgency clause when it acquired Wishtown land from farmers ? Did it hear the objections from Farmers.
    2) Are there any farmers who have not accepted the compensation for wishtown, Noida land ?
    3) In the judgement it was clear that Jaypee will return Expressway land to UP govt after 36 years, What will happen to 25 MN sqft land acquired for Townships ?
    4) The new land acquisition bill that govt is proposing ... will it have any bearing on the Jaypee projects. We all know Shah Bano case, Govt enacted new law against Supreme Court judgement to appease minority community.


    Some observations (for those who found the judgement too lengthy:I have colour coded only for crossreferencing objections and the supreme court's answers.

    1. Land for JP was acquired following application of an urgency clause, same as Noida Extension

    2. A few farmers went to court saying

    (a) urgency clause was wrongly used

    (b) acquisition was for private and not public purpose

    (c) some people had livelihood (farming, ice factory etc) from acquired land.

    (d) some land was used for township and not road building, so it is not for public good

    (e) Some land was acquired far away from the road to be built

    3. Supreme court has upheld the acquisition dismissing all the above counts, saying the following (point wise for each item above)

    (a) Urgency clause application was allowed in this case for the following reasons:


    (1) The case had been previously litigated upon as well as subjected to enquiries and these enquiries had given clean chit to the advertised project


    (2) These litigation and enquiry process had resulted in huge delays of 6-7 years and escalation of project cost from 1700 crores to 9600 crores


    (3) Giving right to file objection would increase the project times by many years more and would render project unviable


    (4) Various district officials who acquired the land had spent time and applied their mind of quantifying how much this delay would affect the project. The urgency clause was used only after proper documentation of the reasons


    (5) Proper paper work had been kept regarding the need of urgency and was submitted as evidence. Hence the objections could be dismissed (note this difference with Noida Extension)

    Hence urgency clause in this regard was upheld as necessary.

    (b) The road - AS WELL AS TOWNSHIPS- were upheld as a public good, which would benefit the backward area of East Yamuna in the backward state of UP. Acquisition by private company was allowed for following reason


    (1) it was under build operate transfer principle - road will revert to govt after 36(?) years while township would revert after 90 years and hence this was not acquisition for companies benefit


    (2) Under BOT principle, company acts as agent of the state


    (3) The whole scheme was a properly transparent well planned sceme from govt for public purpose

    (c) Loss of livelihood was upheld as loss of a few for the benefit of many and was therefore allowed under the 1896 law

    (d) Township was upheld as being part of a proper planned project which was subjected to global tender and BOTH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP were for the public good

    (e) Land far from the road could also be acquired either for alignment of interchange or as part of township or as part of a fully thought out project. And that proper documentation of the reasons had been kept by the govt agencies demonstrating proper application of mind and purpose.

    So to summarise:

    1. Urgency clause use has been upheld for JP


    2. Townships building has been upheld for JP townships


    In my opinion, there cannot be any further challenge for this acquisition since the judgement completely substantiates and upholds the YEIDA and NA for all their actions.


    Almost every one of the objections being raised by farmers over NOIDA Extension and other acquisitions has been addressed in detail by the Supereme court judgement.


    Any more objections to JP are virtually impossible.
    CommentQuote
  • dear venky..many thanks for your concise description of the hearing...this should be of relief to many people..
    regards
    param
    CommentQuote
  • Should or Should not?

    Dear Venky,

    Am a bit new here...have been following few threads to make up mind and get visibility before I decide of buying JP flats..

    I am not too sure if buying JP Krescent homes would be a good idea in the current scenario (am happy to wait for the flats to be delivered after 4-5 years)...

    Any comments are appreciated...

    Kind Regards,

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    Some observations (for those who found the judgement too lengthy:I have colour coded only for crossreferencing objections and the supreme court's answers.

    1. Land for JP was acquired following application of an urgency clause, same as Noida Extension

    2. A few farmers went to court saying

    (a) urgency clause was wrongly used

    (b) acquisition was for private and not public purpose

    (c) some people had livelihood (farming, ice factory etc) from acquired land.

    (d) some land was used for township and not road building, so it is not for public good

    (e) Some land was acquired far away from the road to be built

    3. Supreme court has upheld the acquisition dismissing all the above counts, saying the following (point wise for each item above)

    (a) Urgency clause application was allowed in this case for the following reasons:


    (1) The case had been previously litigated upon as well as subjected to enquiries and these enquiries had given clean chit to the advertised project


    (2) These litigation and enquiry process had resulted in huge delays of 6-7 years and escalation of project cost from 1700 crores to 9600 crores


    (3) Giving right to file objection would increase the project times by many years more and would render project unviable


    (4) Various district officials who acquired the land had spent time and applied their mind of quantifying how much this delay would affect the project. The urgency clause was used only after proper documentation of the reasons


    (5) Proper paper work had been kept regarding the need of urgency and was submitted as evidence. Hence the objections could be dismissed (note this difference with Noida Extension)

    Hence urgency clause in this regard was upheld as necessary.

    (b) The road - AS WELL AS TOWNSHIPS- were upheld as a public good, which would benefit the backward area of East Yamuna in the backward state of UP. Acquisition by private company was allowed for following reason


    (1) it was under build operate transfer principle - road will revert to govt after 36(?) years while township would revert after 90 years and hence this was not acquisition for companies benefit


    (2) Under BOT principle, company acts as agent of the state


    (3) The whole scheme was a properly transparent well planned sceme from govt for public purpose

    (c) Loss of livelihood was upheld as loss of a few for the benefit of many and was therefore allowed under the 1896 law

    (d) Township was upheld as being part of a proper planned project which was subjected to global tender and BOTH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP were for the public good

    (e) Land far from the road could also be acquired either for alignment of interchange or as part of township or as part of a fully thought out project. And that proper documentation of the reasons had been kept by the govt agencies demonstrating proper application of mind and purpose.

    So to summarise:

    1. Urgency clause use has been upheld for JP


    2. Townships building has been upheld for JP townships


    In my opinion, there cannot be any further challenge for this acquisition since the judgement completely substantiates and upholds the YEIDA and NA for all their actions.


    Almost every one of the objections being raised by farmers over NOIDA Extension and other acquisitions has been addressed in detail by the Supereme court judgement.


    Any more objections to JP are virtually impossible.
    CommentQuote