Farmers seek compensation for loss of land to power transmission lines
In a memorandum submitted to the Minister, association's oganisational secretary Attahalli Devaraj said high voltage 66/11 KV and 220 KV power transmission lines of KPTCL passed over agricultural lands, resulting in loss of cultivable area for many farmers.
The transmission lines from KPTCL Mini Station in Gejjeyanavaddaragudi in Hunsur sub division passed through several villages, including Dharmapura, Karimuddanahalli, Aspatre Kaval, Basti Maranahalli, Hallada Koppalu, Udduru Kaval, Tarikal and other areas in Hunsur. These power transmission lines and towers built on the land have not been accompanied by any clear steps regarding compensation to the affected farmers, the association said.
'In response to an RTI application, the officials have claimed that land rates were fixed during a meeting held with farmers in March 2024. But, when asked which specific farmers or land owners attended the meeting, the officials said no farmers had agreed to be present at the meeting. This clearly indicates that the farmers were not part of the decision-making exercise and fair land rate had not been determined', Mr. Devaraj alleged, while contending that the authorities had held meetings on the issue without bringing it to the notice of the land-owning farmers or seeking their consent.
The association sought to bring to the Minister's notice that the market rate of the land in the region was ₹2 lakh per gunta. Hence, a fair rate should be determined for the land and an appropriate compensation amount should be fixed. The farmers' body also contended that the transmission lines had already been electrified without the farmers' consent.
The association pointed out that farmers in villages such as Koodanahalli, Devalapura, Marasettihalli, Joranahalli, Varuna and Vajamangala too had not been adequately compensated while drawing the 220 KV line from Kadakola to Vajamangala in Mysuru taluk. 'Their lands lie near layouts where land prices range between ₹6 lakh and ₹10 lakh per gunta, while the department quotes only ₹50,000 to ₹60,000', Mr. Devaraj said in the memorandum.
Irrigation pumpsets
The association urged the government to discontinue the policy of Aadhaar-linked registration and meter installation for irrigation pumpsets. The irrigation pumpsets of farmers should be regularised upon payment of ₹5,000, the association said.
For lands that had been affected by power transmission lines, the government should provide free electricity connections for irrigation pumpsets, it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Electoral rolls can never be static': SC says Bihar SIR 'voter-friendly'
Observing that electoral rolls cannot remain "static" and there is bound to be a revision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters' list was in fact 'voter-friendly and not exclusionary.' The Supreme Court also said that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit.(ANI/File) As the row over the SIR which has been challenged in the top court escalated, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission(EC) had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. Leaders of opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR) have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar. During the hearing of arguments, the ADR submitted that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the EC notification on the SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn't be allowed to go on. The EC can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added. "By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral rolls can never be static," the bench noted. "There is bound to be revision," the top court said, "otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?" The bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, that despite their arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared that the large number of acceptable documents was "actually inclusionary". "The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary." The bench then went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit. It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral rolls for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, "When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed fit' but the subordinate legislation does not... will it not give a residual discretion to EC to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?" Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral rolls for "any constituency" or "for part of a constituency" and the EC couldn't wipe out the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion. "Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power," Justice Bagchi said. The residuary power of the EC flows from Article 324 of the Constitution and the RP Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the EC in the instant case has only added the word "intensive", that's all, the judge noted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the NGO, alleged the EC played "mischief" and removed the search feature from the draft roll and the list of 65 lakh people whose names were deleted for being dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies. "This happened just a day after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did a press conference pointing out that over lakh people(in an Assembly segment in a Lok Sabha constituency in Bengaluru) were fake voters," he added, arguing that an ordinary person was denied the right to search their name on the draft roll whether dead or alive or migrated to another place. Justice Kant said he was unaware of any such press conference but when it comes to the Registration of Electors Rule of 1960, Section 10 mandates the EC to publish a copy of the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. "They have to publish the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. That's a minimum threshold under the law. However, we would have liked it if it was published on the website for wider publicity," Justice Bagchi said. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said the petitioners claimed the rural population of Bihar was not tech savvy and now they were talking about the inability of the same people in searching online. On August 12, the top court said inclusion and exclusion of citizens or non-citizens from the electoral rolls was within the remit of the Election Commission and backed its stand to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the SIR of voters' list in Bihar.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Bihar SIR row: SC calls SIR exercise 'voter-friendly', 'not exclusionary', says electoral rolls can't remain...
(File/Representational) Bihar SIR row: Observing that electoral rolls cannot remain 'static' and there is bound to be a revision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the expanded list of acceptable documents of identity from seven to 11 for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voters' list was in fact 'voter-friendly and not exclusionary.' As the row over the SIR which has been challenged in the top court escalated, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the Election Commission(EC) had the residual power to conduct such an exercise as it deemed fit. The bench also disagreed with a submission by a petitioner that the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar had no basis in law and ought to be quashed. Leaders of opposition parties including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress and the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR) have challenged the electoral roll revision drive in Bihar. During the hearing of arguments, the ADR submitted that the exercise should not be allowed to be carried out pan-India. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said the EC notification on the SIR ought to be set aside for want of legal basis and never being contemplated in law. He, therefore, contended it couldn't be allowed to go on. The EC can never conduct such an exercise since inception and it is being done for the first time in history and if allowed to happen only God knows where it will end, he added. 'By that logic special intensive revision can never be done. One-time exercise which is done is only for the original electoral roll. To our mind, the electoral rolls can never be static,' the bench noted. 'There is bound to be revision,' the top court said, 'otherwise, how will the poll panel delete the names of those who are dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies?' The bench also told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, that despite their arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar was exclusionary, it appeared that the large number of acceptable documents was 'actually inclusionary'. 'The number of documents in summary revision conducted earlier in the state was seven and in SIR it is 11, which shows it is voter friendly. We understand your arguments that non-acceptance of Aadhaar is exclusionary but a high number of documents is actually inclusionary.' The bench then went on to tell Sankaranarayanan that the EC had residual power to conduct an exercise like the SIR as it deemed fit. It referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act (RP Act), which says 'the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral rolls for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit.' Justice Bagchi further asked Sankaranarayanan, 'When the primary legislation says 'in such manner as deemed fit' but the subordinate legislation does not… will it not give a residual discretion to EC to dovetail the procedure not completely in ignorance of rules but some more additives than what the rules prescribe to deal with the peculiar requirement of a special revision?' Sankaranarayanan submitted that the provision only allowed revision of the electoral rolls for 'any constituency' or 'for part of a constituency' and the EC couldn't wipe out the rolls of an entire state for fresh inclusion. 'Actually, it is a battle between a constitutional right and a constitutional power,' Justice Bagchi said. The residuary power of the EC flows from Article 324 of the Constitution and the RP Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the EC in the instant case has only added the word 'intensive', that's all, the judge noted. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also appearing for the NGO, alleged the EC played 'mischief' and removed the search feature from the draft roll and the list of 65 lakh people whose names were deleted for being dead, migrated or shifted to other constituencies. 'This happened just a day after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did a press conference pointing out that over lakh people(in an Assembly segment in a Lok Sabha constituency in Bengaluru) were fake voters,' he added, arguing that an ordinary person was denied the right to search their name on the draft roll whether dead or alive or migrated to another place. Justice Kant said he was unaware of any such press conference but when it comes to the Registration of Electors Rule of 1960, Section 10 mandates the EC to publish a copy of the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. 'They have to publish the draft rolls at the office in the constituency. That's a minimum threshold under the law. However, we would have liked it if it was published on the website for wider publicity,' Justice Bagchi said. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said the petitioners claimed the rural population of Bihar was not tech savvy and now they were talking about the inability of the same people in searching online. On August 12, the top court said inclusion and exclusion of citizens or non-citizens from the electoral rolls was within the remit of the Election Commission and backed its stand to not accept Aadhaar and voter cards as conclusive proof of citizenship in the SIR of voters' list in Bihar. (Only the headline has been reworked by staff. Copy comes from an agency feed)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC says multiple documents for citizenship in Bihar SIR are voter-friendly
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the availability of multiple documents to prove citizenship under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls was 'voter-friendly rather than restrictive.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation during a hearing on petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI's) June 24 directive ordering the SIR. Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, had raised concerns about the exclusionary nature of the verification exercise. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing multiple petitions contesting the ECI's directive, which mandates that voters not listed in the 2003 electoral roll must furnish documents to prove citizenship. Individuals born after December 2004 are also required to submit citizenship proof of both parents, with additional conditions if a parent is a foreign national. The court noted that the SIR in Bihar permits any of 11 documents to be submitted to establish citizenship, whereas the earlier summary revision in Jharkhand allowed only seven documents for identity verification. While acknowledging concerns around Aadhaar exclusion, Justice Bagchi said the broader set of documents available in Bihar makes the process 'voter-friendly rather than restrictive.' Singhvi, however, questioned the "compelling need" to conduct the SIR in such a short timeframe, arguing that it could lead to mass voter exclusion. He pointed out that many women in Bihar lack matriculation or educational certificates issued by recognised boards, which are among the 11 approved documents. Legal scope of ECI's powers debated Justice Bagchi highlighted that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act grants the ECI some flexibility to conduct a special revision 'in such manner as it may think fit,' subject to limitations. He posed a question to the legal counsels on whether this provision gave the ECI 'residuary discretion' to introduce additions such as enumeration forms or extra documentation for the revision process. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for the petitioners, countered that Section 21(3) 'cannot take away my right to adult suffrage under Article 326 at any cost,' nor the right to vote under Section 62 of the RP Act. 'This is a battle between a constitutional entitlement and a constitutional right,' Justice Bagchi remarked. Allegations of EC website changes after Rahul Gandhi's remarks Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), submitted that the ECI removed the searchable list of electoral rolls from its website after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the poll body of aiding 'vote theft' on August 4. 'The searchable list was available till August 4,' Bhushan told the court. The Bench also clarified that it would not take up matters related to the SIR in West Bengal, as the state Assembly elections are scheduled for 2026. 'Bengal can wait. Nothing is happening now,' the court said. The hearing is expected to continue on Thursday.
