Tripura rights panel notice to NHIDCL over compensation delay
Despite land acquisition over seven years ago for a national highway project, NHIDCL did not pay due compensation to 20 families in Jampui Hills of North Tripura, along the Tripura-Mizoram border. Based on a media report, THRC chairperson Justice Arindam Lodh took cognisance of the case and served notice.
According to the report, NHIDCL acquired land between June 25, 2018, and Feb 4, 2019, for the construction of National Highways 44A and 313.
Despite the final compensation awards being issued in Jan 2021, the affected families have still not received any payment.
"Despite the absence of any legal dispute or ownership issue, the compensation has not been released, leaving the families in distress. NHIDCL's repeated deferrals citing project alignment changes, contractor issues, and a new Detailed Project Report are unjustified," Justice Lodh said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
The sub-divisional magistrate of Kanchanpur already completed the assessment and forwarded it to the land acquisition authority. Yet, NHIDCL has withheld the payment without any valid grounds. Terming the prolonged delay a clear violation of human rights, THRC said the affected landowners have been subjected to harassment and deprivation of their legitimate entitlements. Sources say the land acquisition and compensation process was completed, and notifications were issued.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Justice Varma's plea against in-house inquiry, CJI's recommendation
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality and findings of an in-house judicial inquiry that affirmed 'strong inferential evidence' of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi this year. Justice Yashwant Varma. (PTI) Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih affirmed the legality and constitutional validity of the inquiry mechanism, holding that it did not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. 'With these observations, we have dismissed the petition,' Justice Datta said in court. The ruling came days after the court had reserved its verdict, having heard extensive arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi for Justice Varma. In its ruling, the apex court framed six legal and constitutional questions and answered all against Justice Varma. While noting that his conduct 'did not inspire confidence,' the bench said, even as it proceeded to examine the matter due to the important legal issues raised. The court held that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges. The bench ruled that the process followed did not infringe on Justice Varma's constitutional or fundamental rights. Except for the release of a video showing the charred cash, which the court noted did not impact the outcome, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee 'scrupulously' followed the laid-down procedure. The court rejected the argument that the CJI's May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal was unconstitutional or made without affording him a hearing. 'The in-house procedure does not contemplate a hearing before the CJI or the collegium,' the bench said. The court also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court. Earlier, while reserving its verdict on July 30, the court defended the role of the CJI in safeguarding institutional integrity, saying the top judge of the country is 'not a mere post office' but a constitutional functionary empowered to take proactive measures. It rejected Justice Varma's contention that the in-house committee's recommendation for removal overstepped its constitutional mandate. 'The recommendation for removal has to go. It is more than persuasive. When the CJI recommends removal, it virtually amounts to a death knell for a judge,' Sibal argued. But the court had then said the ultimate decision rests with Parliament, which is not bound by the CJI's recommendation. The bench, during the July 30 hearing, also pointed out that the Judges' Protection Act allows for non-punitive steps to be taken by judicial authorities in the interest of the institution, adding that the term 'otherwise' in the law gave the court and the CJI a broad mandate to preserve judicial integrity. Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after. The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of 'strong inferential evidence' linking Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, triggering Varma's legal challenge. While Justice Varma's legal team argued that principles of natural justice were violated, including denial of cross-examination and personal hearing before the CJI, the court maintained that the in-house mechanism is limited in scope and not a full-fledged trial, with the final decision on removal resting with Parliament. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. Earlier, the three-member in-house panel, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, concluded its findings on May 3. Though it found no direct evidence linking Justice Varma to the charred currency, the report stated that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. Varma has denied all wrongdoing, terming the case a conspiracy, and in a letter to CJI Khanna on May 6, rejected the latter's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ED raids in Lucknow in money laundering case against ex-UP Invest CEO
The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday conducted searches here in connection with a money laundering case against suspended IAS officer and former Invest Uttar Pradesh CEO Abhishek Prakash , official sources said. Four premises linked to alleged middleman Nikant Jain , who allegedly asked for a bribe on behalf of Prakash, are being searched in the city under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they said. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Apart from Jain's house, two premises registered as offices of companies related to him and his family members are being searched. The fourth is a hotel where his family members are common directors, they said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Jain was arrested earlier by Uttar Pradesh Police . Prakash, a 2006-batch IAS officer, was suspended in March this year by the Uttar Pradesh government after an investor in the solar industry lodged a complaint alleging that Jain demanded a commission to facilitate approvals for projects.
