Revenue Minister confident that major chunk of land issues will be resolved by August 15
Steps have been taken to ensure that the Act as well as the rules governing it can be understood by laypersons. The Act has been drafted after touring 18 States to study similar legislations being implemented there and the final Bhu Bharati Act was prepared after holding elaborate consultations with experts and stakeholders.
The Minister was speaking in the awareness meetings on Bhu Bharati conducted at Kamareddy, Warangal and Khammam districts on Tuesday. The Minister exuded confidence that land related issues would be resolved to a major extent by August 15, the Independence Day, providing much needed relief to the people.
Mr. Srinivas Reddy made a trenchant attack on the previous BRS government that enacted the Records of Rights Act in 2020 but failed to prepare rules for its implementation in the next three years when it was in power. Vast extent of lands were misappropriated in the name of Record of Rights Act and Dharani portal resulting in sleepless nights to genuine landowners, but the previous government did not initiate any steps to remedy the situation.
Vexed with the situation, they taught the BRS fitting lessons in the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. 'These (BRS) leaders are now shedding crocodile tears on land issues. Our government is committed to do justice to the people and we are firm on ensuring that land is restored to all genuine owners who lost it,' he said.
He said several steps had been initiated to educate people about the provisions of the Bhu Bharati Act and 3,400 petitions had been received in the 20 meetings convened in the villages so far. The new legislation, he said, had incorporated grievance redressal mechanism at different levels and the government was firm on initiating action against the officials found guilty of committing mistakes.
Simultaneously, steps had been initiated to put in place revenue administration at the village level through appointment of officers in all 10,956 revenue villages. In addition, the process for recruiting over 1,000 licenced surveyors had also been put in place to ensure that they would correct the records at the village level after conducting survey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
IT ministry says DPDP Act does not dilute RTI
The IT ministry has clarified that it does not believe the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 dilutes the Right to Information (RTI) Act. IT ministry says DPDP Act does not dilute RTI IT secretary S Krishnan told HT the amendment to the RTI Act through the DPDP law only removed 'a redundant provision' and does not affect citizens' right to information. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, removing a proviso that allowed public information officers to share PRIVATE information in circumstances where the disclosure was deemed to be in larger public interest. However, Krishnan said this was redundant because section 8(2) of the RTI Act already permits public authorities to share ANY information if it serves public interest, regardless of exceptions in section 8(1). 'So there is no dilution, and in fact there is a strengthening,' the secretary said. The issue came up in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday through a starred question. IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said the amendment balances the right to privacy, as upheld by the Supreme Court, with the right to information. He said the change aligns with judicial reasoning and prevents conflict between the two laws. The ministry has sought the Attorney General's confirmation of this interpretation. Once cleared, the law will be enforced, though the government does not expect any amendments to the DPDP Act. The rules that operationalise the law, however, are still awaited – more than 24 months since the act came into existence. The ministry has finalised the rules, Krishnan said, and will be issued after inter-ministerial feedback.
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Parl panel seeks review of safe harbour laws
A house panel has recommended the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) to review the safe harbour protections available to intermediaries, like social media companies who host user generated content, under the IT Act, especially where platforms fail to act on unlawful content. This is to strike a balance between their liability immunity and the need for greater accountability, said the committee. Parl panel seeks review of safe harbour laws The recommendation was made in the 254th report of the parliamentary standing committee on home affairs, titled 'Cyber Crime - Ramifications, Protection and Prevention,' tabled in parliament on Wednesday. The 'safe harbour' protections, under section 79 of the IT Act, exempts the intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users, as long as they adhere to guidelines prescribed by the government. The Committee urged MeitY, along with home and law ministries, to amend the IT Act to make social media platforms legally accountable if they ignore takedown orders. It suggested graded penalties, fines or even suspension for repeat violations, while ensuring due process and appeal rights to protect free speech. 'The Committee has observed that certain social media intermediaries at times fail to cooperate with law enforcement agencies and legal provisions in promptly removing unlawful content, including morphed videos, fake profiles, misinformation and content promoting violence based on religion or caste, thereby potentially abetting criminal activities and undermining public order,' said the committee. This comes as X (formerly Twitter) awaits judgment in its case against the centre, challenging the government's content takedown orders issued under section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and its use of the Sahyog Portal to issue content takedown notices. While section 79 of the Act provides intermediaries with 'safe harbour', under part (3)(b), the intermediary can lose if it fails to remove the unlawful content after being notified by the government. The Sahyog portal enables the process of issuing takedown orders under section 79(3)(b), which X says circumvents section 69A of the IT Act, which has the necessary safeguards for intermediaries. On over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hotstar, etc, the committee recommended setting up a panel of experts to review flagged content after release, frame cultural guidelines, and suggest penalties for violations. The house panel said these platforms, unlike films, face weak checks and minors remain exposed to harmful content. It also called for stronger age verification, better parental controls, and mandatory regional language content warnings on th eplatforms. This comes after the minister of information and broadcasting Ashwini Vaishnaw, recently revealed in Lok Sabha that the ministry had blocked 43 OTT platforms for obscene and objectionable content. The release of the report by the house panel also coincided with the passing of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill in Lok Sabha, which puts a ban on online money games. The committee in its report had recommended to the MeitY to create a dedicated online gaming ecosystem through broad consultations, one that tackles issues with real money and betting apps while also nurturing India's multimedia, animation, and gaming industries.
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bills for removal of PM, CMs, ministers tabled in Lok Sabha, sent to JPC
Amit Shah NEW DELHI: The ongoing acrimony between the opposition and the treasury, witnessed throughout the monsoon session of Parliament, reached a flashpoint in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday when Union home minister Amit Shah introduced the three bills that provide a legal framework for removing the Prime Minister, Union ministers, chief ministers, and ministers in states and Union territories arrested and detained on serious criminal charges. Shah said that the three legislations will be referred to a joint parliamentary committee for detailed scrutiny even as opposition MPs, essentially from Trinamool Congress and Congress, launched into aggressive protests and tore copies of the bills. They trooped into the well of the House, near Shah's front-row seat. Bill is in violation of presumption of innocence, says oppn in Lok Sabha Opposition MPs said the bills violated constitutional principles, undermined federalism, and inverted the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." They warned of potential misuse for political purposes and the risk of transforming India into a police state. Pandemonium broke out as soon as home minister Amit Shah sought to move the three bills — the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025; the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025; and Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 — which propose that if the PM, ministers or CMs are arrested and detained for 30 days for offences carrying a jail term of at least five years, they will lose their positions on the 31st day. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The 5 Books Warren Buffett Recommends You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Shah justified the legislations, 'We cannot be so shameless (ham itne nirlajj nahi ho sakte) as to occupy constitutional positions while facing charges,' home minister said. Initially, only Trinamool MPs, led by Kalyan Banerjee, stormed the well. After Congress netas K C Venugopal and Manish Tewari spoke, Venugopal tore a copy of the bill, and Congress MPs joined TMC in protest. Venugopal questioned Shah's claim of upholding public morality, referring to Shah's 2010 arrest as Gujarat's home minister. Shah countered, stating he had resigned on moral grounds before his arrest on 'false' allegations and refrained from holding constitutional positions until cleared by courts. 'I want to remind Congress that I had already resigned before being arrested, and even after being released on bail, I did not take any constitutional position until I was proven innocent by the court.' He added, 'The court dismissed the false case against me, stating that it was motivated by political vendetta. ' Three opposition MPs — Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM), N K Premachandran (RSP) and Manish Tewari (Congress) — opposed the bill saying that it is in violation of presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of administration and a marked assualt on the basic structure of the Constitution. Tewari called the bills 'squarely destructive' to the Constitution's basic structure, arguing they bypassed due process and made investigating officers the 'boss of the Prime Minister'. Owaisi accused the govt of enabling executive agencies to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on flimsy allegations, likening the proposed system to Nazi Germany's Gestapo. Venugopal claimed the bills aimed to sabotage India's federal structure. Shah rejected Premachandran's contention that the bills were brought in haste, saying they will be sent to a joint panel, where members of both Houses would get an opportunity to give their suggestions. The constitutional amendment bill requires two-thirds support in both Houses — a majority that the governing alliance currently lacks. One opposition MP twisted Shah's mic, while others continued throwing bits of paper at him, prompting treasury MPs to rush into the well. MPs from both sides stood face-to-face, exchanging threats, and even after the House was adjourned, opposition MPs continued shouting slogans. BJP MPs, including ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ravneet Bittu, moved to block opposition MPs from approaching Shah. The home minister, however, asked his colleagues to return to their seats. Congress MP Deepender Hooda also intervened, preventing opposition MPs from entering the aisle. Normalcy returned only after Shah and other ministers left the House as the opposition members jeered. When House resumed an hour later, the bills were referred to JPC, but proceedings occurred under tight security, with marshals present. Shah, instead of taking his front row seat, sat in the third row as opposition MPs again occupied the well. Govt sources said that their focus was on getting the legislations passed.
