184 beneficiaries await PWD nod
The road project is part of the ambitious Karamana–Kaliyikkavila highway development aimed at decongesting the southern stretch of NH-66 and improving connectivity along the Kerala-Tamil Nadu border. However, while most procedural steps were completed, the final administrative nod from PWD is holding up the release of funds meant for 184 eligible beneficiaries.
District collector Anu Kumari confirmed to TOI that the list of beneficiaries, comprising 52 landowners and over 130 tenant shop owners and workers, was handed over to state finance department, which already approved it.
She added that the compensation will be disbursed immediately once the department grants sanction.
The compensation is being distributed under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Act, ensuring fair and lawful compensation not only for landowners but also for tenant businesses and employees who will be displaced by the road expansion.
The delay has triggered growing concern among local stakeholders, many of whom already vacated or partially dismantled their properties in anticipation of compensation. Several shop owners in Balaramapuram expressed frustration over the uncertainty, citing financial strain and business disruption.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
IT's benami unit attaches 12 acres of tribal land near Bandhavgarh tiger reserve in MP
Bhopal: The Income Tax department 's Benami Prohibition Unit in Bhopal has provisionally attached nearly 12 acres of tribal land located in the buffer zone of Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve in Umaria district of Madhya Pradesh. The land, valued at approximately Rs 90 lakh, was allegedly acquired using unaccounted cash by a wealthy businessman from Nagod tehsil in Satna district, in the name of his tribal employee— a benami transaction intended to bypass laws protecting tribal land. The attached properties, situated in village Tala and Village Mahaman of Tehsil Manpur, Umaria district, were purchased between 2023 and 2024 in the name of Raja, a Scheduled Tribe who worked as a driver for the accused businessman for over 20 years. All three plots are within the buffer zone of Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, a significant ecotourism area attracting visitors globally. Officials stated that the lands were acquired with the clear intent of commercial development, including resorts, restaurants, and homestays. Two of the plots were already under active construction for homestays, while a third strategic plot is located just 1.3 km from the Tala Gate, the main entry point to the national park, adjacent to Nature Heritage Resort, a well-known property in the region. Officials said that Raja, the registered landowner, has extremely limited means. His family of seven resides in a one-room house with a tin roof on govt land, and he lacks the financial capacity to purchase land valued in lakhs of rupees. Investigations revealed that the actual buyer, the businessman from Satna, used cash payments to acquire the land. Some payments were made directly to the tribal sellers, while other amounts were deposited into Raja's bank account and subsequently transferred to the sellers—a common method to disguise benami ownership. In notified scheduled tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, tribal land cannot be transferred to non-tribals without specific approval from the district collector, according to Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. This regulation safeguards tribal land rights in areas with significant tribal populations. However, in this case, the businessman circumvented the restriction by registering the land in the name of his tribal employee. Officials stated that this was done deliberately to exploit loopholes and develop commercial properties in a restricted zone. Based on the findings, the IT Department's Benami Unit in Bhopal initiated proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, 1988. A show-cause notice under Section 24(1) was issued to both the benamidar, Raja, and the beneficial owner, the businessman. The three land parcels, totaling 11.878 acres, have been provisionally attached under Section 24(3) of the PBPT Act, preventing their sale, transfer, or alteration during the stipulated four-month notice period. Officials highlighted that this case reflects a growing pattern of non-tribals using tribal proxies to acquire valuable land near protected zones for commercial tourism projects. Madhya Pradesh, which has the highest tribal population in India, is home to eight tiger reserves, many located in tribal-dominated regions. "These benami setups not only violate tribal land protection laws but also threaten the ecological balance of sensitive areas," said a senior official involved in the case. More such cases are being monitored, particularly around ecotourism hotspots like Bandhavgarh, Kanha, and Pench.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
CCI closes startup body's complaint against Google, refrains from probe
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has decided against launching a probe into the Alliance of Digital India Foundation 's (ADIF's) complaint against tech giant Google 's alleged anti-competitive practices in the practices in online advertising , and has closed the startup body had essentially challenged Google's alleged dominant position and "purportedly abusive behaviour" in the online search advertisement and online display advertisement an order dated August 1, reviewed by ET, the antitrust regulator, however, said, 'ADIF hasn't pointed out any specific part of any policy or conduct of Google in support of its claim that the allegations made in the present matter also extend to Google's Online Display Advertising services'.'Therefore, in light of there being no supporting evidence to such claim, the Commission does not deem fit to take cognizance of such claim of ADIF,' it for some other allegations by the ADIF, the regulator said it had addressed similar issues in certain earlier cases and 'no purpose would be served by inquiring into the same issue yet again without there being any material change in circumstances being pointed out'.The regulator added that re-investigating the same issue again 'would simply lead to a wastage of time and resources of the public exchequer'.The Commission has stressed that it has 'examined in detail the averments made by ADIF and the submissions thereto made by Google, on all the issues related to alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies' before reaching its also said that all the four instances of alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies as raised by ADIF in the present matter, 'have already been examined in substance and set to rest by the Commission in its previous decisions in Matrimony case (supra) and/ or Vishal Gupta case (supra)'.'The Commission is not convinced with the reasons stated by ADIF for distinguishing its allegations from the issues examined in previous orders passed by the Commission. As per the clear language of Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, the issues examined in the previous order may be 'the same' or 'substantially the same',' it said in the order.'Therefore, the present matter is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2A) of the Act,' it added.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
CCI closes startup body's complaint against Google, refrains from probe
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has decided against launching a probe into the Alliance of Digital India Foundation's (ADIF's) complaint against tech giant Google's alleged anti-competitive practices in the practices in online advertising, and closed the startup body had essentially challenged Google's alleged dominant position and "purportedly abusive behaviour" in the online search advertisement and online display advertisement markets. In an order dated August 1, reviewed by ET, the antitrust regulator, however, said, 'ADIF hasn't pointed out any specific part of any policy or conduct of Google in support of its claim that the allegations made in the present matter also extend to Google's Online Display Advertising services'. 'Therefore, in light of there being no supporting evidence to such claim, the Commission does not deem fit to take cognizance of such claim of ADIF,' it for some other allegations by the ADIF, the regulator said it had addressed similar issues in certain earlier cases and 'no purpose would be served by inquiring into the same issue yet again without there being any material change in circumstances being pointed out'.The regulator added that re-investigating the same issue again 'would simply lead to a wastage of time and resources of the public exchequer'. The Commission has stressed that it has 'examined in detail the averments made by ADIF and the submissions thereto made by Google, on all the issues related to alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies' before reaching its conclusion. It also said that all the four instances of alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies as raised by ADIF in the present matter, 'have already been examined in substance and set to rest by the Commission in its previous decisions in Matrimony case (supra) and/ or Vishal Gupta case (supra)'. 'The Commission is not convinced with the reasons stated by ADIF for distinguishing its allegations from the issues examined in previous orders passed by the Commission. As per the clear language of Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, the issues examined in the previous order may be 'the same' or 'substantially the same',' it said in the order. 'Therefore, the present matter is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2A) of the Act,' it added.
