Latest news with #ChiefJusticeofIndia
The Wire
3 days ago
- General
- The Wire
‘Please Protect Our Right to Live': Women Protesters Write to CJI, Oppose Second Waste Plant in Bawana
Women from Sanoth village in Delhi's Narela zone have been staging a peaceful protest against the setting up of a second waste-to-energy (WTE) plant in Bawana. Photo by arrangement Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now New Delhi: For the past 150 days, a group of women – mothers, grandmothers, and homemakers –from Sanoth village in Delhi's Narela zone have been staging a peaceful protest against the setting up of a second waste-to-energy (WTE) plant in the area, where locals say they already face pollution-related health hazards due to the presence of an existing WTE plant. With folded hands and unwavering resolve, they have now made an emotional appeal to the highest judicial authority in the country: the Chief Justice of India (CJI). In a letter sent on May 20 to the CJI, the women describe their lives as 'forgotten,' forced to live in what they call 'Delhi's dumping ground'. 'Garbage from across the city comes here, into our homes, into our skies, and into our lungs,' the letter reads. Sanoth village, situated on the outer edge of Delhi in Bawana, already suffers under the shadow of a massive WTE plant that burns thousands of tonnes of unsegregated municipal waste daily. The residents say this has turned the air toxic. Children cough through the night, elderly residents battle respiratory and kidney ailments, and young women are falling ill at alarming rates. 'We already have three dumping grounds and countless polluting industries, where are we supposed to go now? My daughter complains of stinging eyes and chest pain. Is this the cost of living in our own village?' says Vimla, a resident. Ignored by elected leaders Despite writing letters to their local MLA and MP, the women say their protests have been met with silence. No official has visited them. Instead, they now face an even harsher blow: approval for a second WTE plant just 800 meters from the village. This new facility will process an additional 3,000 tonnes of Delhi's waste everyday. 'Another fire. Another furnace,' their letter to the CJI states. 'It won't just burn garbage, it will burn what little peace we have left.' The women describe how their children, instead of playing freely, now struggle to run for even a minute. 'Their tiny lungs are already damaged. We may not have data or reports, but this is our everyday reality. We know what it feels like to sit beside a sick child and wonder if the air itself is killing them,' say the women. A fight for the right to breathe Since their protest began on December 20, the women of Sanoth have braved Delhi's harsh winter and scorching summer, refusing to relent. Their demand is simple yet profound: the right to breathe clean air. In their letter to the CJI, they invoke Article 21 of the Constitution, the fundamental right to life. 'If development means breathing in cancerous fumes, drinking contaminated water, and watching our grandchildren suffer, then what is this, development or destruction?' they ask. Environmental experts have also raised concerns about such projects. Reports by organisations such as the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) have warned that incineration of unsegregated waste, especially in densely populated and industrial zones, poses grave health and ecological risks. Yet in working class neighborhoods like Bawana, these concerns are often ignored. 'We are not included in decisions that affect our lives,' the letter states. 'Plans are made for us, never with us.' 'Please stand with us, Hon'ble Sir. Please protect our children. Please protect our right to live,' the letter adds. For the women of Sanoth, this plea to the Chief Justice may be their final hope.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
In dispute over Bangalore Palace grounds, SC grants relief to Karnataka government from depositing Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR with former royals
In a short-term relief for the Karnataka government in its long-standing dispute with the former royals of Mysore over the 472-acre Bangalore Palace grounds, the Supreme Court Thursday allowed an application filed by the state government against depositing transferable development rights (TDRs) worth over Rs 3,000 crore with the royals. The Supreme Court (SC) allowed the Karnataka government's plea for keeping the TDRs in the court registry until the settlement of review petitions filed by the state against an SC order of December 10, 2024, in a contempt plea to pay TDR to the royals. The SC has also directed that the original dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds – located in the heart of Bengaluru – be placed before a three-judge bench for commencement of hearings from August 18. The SC bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N K Singh heard the interlocutory application filed by the Karnataka government on Thursday after it was initially referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on May 27 for orders on the administrative side. 'As an interim measure, all the TDRs issued pursuant to the interim/contempt orders passed by this Court, shall be kept in the Registry of this Court during the pendency of the present appeal. If the TDRs have been handed over to the appellants (non-applicants), they are directed not to utilize or sell the TDR/DRCs (Development Rights Certificates) till further orders,' the SC bench ruled Thursday. 'It is made clear that no third-party interest or personal benefits shall be created/drawn out of TDRs/DRCs released by the Registry of this Court,' the SC said. The SC further said that all the civil appeals filed by the former royals in 1997 against the acquisition of the palace land by the Karnataka government in 1996 must be placed before a three-judge bench for final hearings on the dispute to start in August this year. The top court also said that the hearing of review petitions of the state government against the December 10, 2024, order of the SC to deposit TDRs – for portions of the Bangalore Palace land sought to be acquired by the state for road development – should commence from the week of July 21. The interim directions 'are subject to the outcome of the Review Petitions. However, if the Review Petitions are declined, in that event, the interim direction shall remain in force for a period of four weeks from the date of passing of such order and/or the matter is heard by a three-Judge Bench, whichever is later,' the court said. The apex court added that orders issued earlier on 21.11.2014, 17.05.2023, 19.03.2024, and 22.05.2025 to the state to pay the TDR to the royals 'shall be kept in abeyance' in order to avoid complications. The Karnataka government moved the new interlocutory application in the original Bangalore palace civil dispute cases of 1997 after a bench of the SC on May 22 rejected the state government's plea not to allow release of TDRs worth over Rs 3,000 crore to the former royals until the main dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds is settled by the SC. The state was directed by the SC on December 10, 2024, to pay compensation in the form of TDRs at the prevailing market value to the erstwhile royal family as agreed by the state and ordered by the SC in November 2014 for acquisition of a 15.36 acre portion – out of the 472 acres of the disputed Bangalore palace property – for a road widening project. The SC order came in the wake of contempt of court petitions filed by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, the now deceased Srikantadatta Wadiyar, his wife Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, and others, over the delay in the payment of compensation by the state. With the market value of the land sought to be acquired for road work assessed to be in the range of Rs 3,014 crore at present, the Congress government in Karnataka introduced an ordinance on January 29 to withdraw the TDR offer for the Bangalore Palace land. The SC, however, rejected the Karnataka government's effort to counter the compensation payment with the ordinance and indicated on February 13 that the December 10, 2024, order by a three-judge bench in the contempt pleas is not negotiable. The Bangalore Palace grounds spread over 472 acres of land were acquired by the Karnataka government through the passage of the Mysore Palace Transfer and Acquisition Act of 1996, which received the assent of the President and came into force on November 18, 1996. In 1996, the state was to pay Rs 11 crore as compensation for the entire land at the rate of Rs 2.30 lakh per acre. However, the acquisition by the state has remained in limbo since the royal family challenged the validity of the acquisition law in the Supreme Court after the Karnataka HC upheld the law on March 31, 1997. Subsequently, the Karnataka government tried to acquire 15.36 acres of the palace land for widening of the Jayamahal Road and the Palace Road in central Bengaluru – over a stretch of two km – and a TDR compensation provision was provided for the acquisition. The TDR that is to be paid to the royal family for the acquisition of 15.36 acres of land or 13,91,742 sq ft of land at the prevailing guidance value of Rs 2.70 lakh per sq metre would amount to Rs 200 crore for every acre and a total of Rs 3,014 crore, the state has argued. 'Once TDR is paid it cannot be regained. It would affect the state's economy. We have decided not to pay the TDR. Since it is under litigation, there are a lot of complications. The ordinance will empower us to keep control over the land. The appropriate decision on compensation will be taken at the right time,' Karnataka Law Minister H K Patil has stated.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bangalore Palace grounds dispute: Supreme Court refers Karnataka's plea on Rs 3,000 crore TDR to CJI
A Supreme Court bench on Tuesday referred to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai an interlocutory application filed by the Karnataka government against a December 2024 apex court directive to deposit Transferable Development Rights to members of the erstwhile royal family of Mysore in a three-decade-old legal dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds. The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta said, 'Let IA No. 136367/2025 be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India on administrative side for appropriate orders.' The Karnataka government moved the new application in the original Bangalore palace civil dispute cases of 1997 after a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court rejected the state government's plea not to allow the release of TDR worth over Rs 3,000 crore to the former royals until the apex court settles the main dispute over the Bangalore Palace grounds. The three-judge bench, in the course of adjudicating contempt petitions filed by the royals against the non-payment of TDR by the Karnataka government, directed the state on December 10, 2024, to deposit TDR for the portions of the Bangalore Palace grounds that were sought to be acquired for road development by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in 2014. Earlier this month, the Karnataka government filed an application before the three-judge bench, stating that the TDR deposited by the state in compliance with the orders in the contempt petition must not be released to the former royals until the disposal of the civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court. The state also argued that review petitions had been filed for review of the Supreme Court orders that directed the Karnataka government to make the TDR payments to the former royals. On May 22, Justice Aravind Kumar ruled on behalf of the three-judge bench that the state government's fear of not being able to recover TDR if the civil dispute over the takeover of the Bangalore Palace land by the state is decided in favour of the government was 'not a genuine apprehension'. The Supreme Court ruled on May 22 that the state's apprehensions 'cannot be imported to the orders which have been wilfully disobeyed by contemnors, and conditions if any now imposed, for the issuance of TDRs'. On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the state to pay compensation in the form of TDR at the prevailing market value to the erstwhile royal family as agreed by the state and ordered by the apex court in November 2014 for the acquisition of a 15.36-acre portion out of the 472 acres of the disputed Bangalore palace property for a road widening project. The Supreme Court order came in response to contempt of court petitions filed by the late Srikantadatta Wadiyar, the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, his wife, Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, and others, regarding the delay in the state's payment of compensation. With the market value of the land sought to be acquired for road work assessed to be in the range of Rs 3,014 crore at present, the Congress government in Karnataka introduced an ordinance on January 29 to withdraw the TDR offer for the Bangalore Palace land. 'We are trying to safeguard the interest of the state and the property of the state, and we have already stated in great detail that the cost under discussion of somewhere around Rs 3,000 crore is not acceptable and we have now introduced the ordinance keeping all this in view,' Law Minister H K Patil said in February. The ordinance states that the 'financial effect of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will be grave on the exchequer of the state of Karnataka, and upon the urban planning of the city of Bengaluru'. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the Karnataka government's effort to counter the compensation payment and indicated on February 13 that the December 10, 2024, order by a three-judge bench in the contempt pleas was not negotiable. The Bangalore Palace grounds, spanning 472 acres of land, were acquired by the Karnataka government through the passage of the Mysore Palace Transfer and Acquisition Act of 1996, which received the President's assent and came into force on November 18, 1996. In 1996, the state was to pay Rs 11 crore as compensation for the entire land at the rate of Rs 2.30 lakh per acre. However, the acquisition by the state has remained in limbo since the royal family challenged the validity of the acquisition law in the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court upheld the law on March 31, 1997. Subsequently, the Karnataka government attempted to acquire 15.36 acres of the palace land for the widening of Jayamahal Road and Palace Road in central Bengaluru, spanning a 2-km stretch, and a TDR compensation provision was provided for the acquisition. The TDR to be paid to the royal family for the acquisition of 15.36 acres of land, equivalent to 13,91,742 sq ft, at the prevailing guidance value of Rs 2.70 lakh per sq metre, will amount to Rs 200 crore per acre, totalling Rs 3,014 crore, the state has argued. 'Once TDR is paid, it cannot be regained. It would affect the state's economy. We have decided not to pay the TDR. Since it is under litigation, there are a lot of complications. The ordinance will empower us to keep control over the land. The appropriate decision on compensation will be taken at the right time,' Patil stated.
United News of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC refers Karnataka Govt's plea on Bangalore Palace TDR dispute to CJI
New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice B. R. Gavai the Karnataka government's application challenging a direction for the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family. CJI Gavai would now study the matter and could give appropriate orders on the constitution of a larger bench to hear the matter. The direction for placing the matter before the CJI came from a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, which expressed reservations about sitting in appeal over an order passed by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court. The matter arose out of a May 22 order passed by a bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, which, while hearing a batch of contempt petitions, directed the Karnataka government to release TDR certificates in respect of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds acquired by the state, valued at over Rs 3,000 crore in favour of the legal heirs of the Mysuru royal family. In response, the Karnataka government moved an application in the apex court in a connected civil appeal challenging the direction. Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the May 22 order was issued in a contempt matter, while the present application was filed in an appeal that has been pending since 1997. Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing, 'How can we sit in appeal over an order passed by a coordinate Bench?' In support, Sibal submitted, 'This order has been passed in a contempt petition, but we are before the court in a connected appeal.' The bench noted that appropriate orders, including on whether the matter should be heard by a larger bench, must be sought from the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before CJI Gavai on the administrative side. The underlying dispute has its roots in 1996, when the Karnataka government enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, seeking to acquire the Palace Grounds. The Act was upheld by the Karnataka High Court, which was subsequently challenged by the heirs of the royal family in a civil appeal before the Supreme Court in 1997, which remains pending. On Monday, the application was mentioned before a bench led by CJI B. R. Gavai, which agreed to list the matter today and remarked on the procedural question whether one bench could effectively review the order of another coordinate bench. Arguing against the retrospective grant of TDR, Sibal stated, 'TDR was permitted only after a 2004 amendment. It cannot be applied retrospectively.' On the other side, counsel for the claimants submitted that the matter had already become infructuous, asserting that the TDR certificates had already been issued in compliance with the earlier direction. The issue now awaits further consideration by a larger bench, subject to orders by the Chief Justice of India. UNI SNG SSP
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
The case behind CJI Gavai's first judgment, which proclaimed Pune land transfer as illegal
In a landmark judgment on May 15, also the first day after Justice B R Gavai took over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI), a Supreme Court bench comprising the CJI, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran concluded that the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and builders had converted precious forest land into space for commercial use under the garb of resettling people. What is the case and what is its connection with Pune? An area measuring 32 acres and 35 guntha at Survey No. 20 of Kondhwa Budruk village in Pune was on March 1, 1879 notified as a reserved forest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878. Thereafter, a portion of the land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntha was de-reserved by the state government on January 5, 1934 and the rest of the land remained as forest land. In 1960, a different plot of land in Survey No. 37 of Kondhwa Budruk village owned by a family, the Chavans, was acquired by the state government to construct the Dr Bandorwala Leprosy hospital. The Chavan family was not paid any compensation and instead they requested the land in Survey No. 20 as an alternative for their resettlement and the tehsildar on May 13, 1968 released the land to the Chavan family for cultivation for one year on the condition that they will neither lease, mortgage, sell or excavate it without the approval of the Collector. The one-year contract was never renewed. However, the state government in 1969 decided that the forest land given on lease for cultivation should be permanently released for cultivation to the leaseholder after de-reservation. Meanwhile, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force from October 25, 1980 and it stated that no forest land could be de-reserved or used for any non-forest purposes without the permission of the Union government. The Chavan family made an application to permanently release the land in 1988. Bureaucracy's action On June 19, 1991, the then District Collector found that the members of the Chavan 'family' were using only 3 acres and 20 gunthas for cultivation. The Collector therefore recommended that the area under actual cultivation be allotted to them in view of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1969 while recommending that the possession of the remaining land be handed over to the Forest department. On November 30, 1994, the Divisional Commissioner recommended to the state government that the entire land should be allotted to the Chavan family and observed that there was no necessity to obtain the Union government's prior approval for allotment of the land, which is a reserved forest. Revenue minister's intervention The then state minister for revenue was of the opinion that the land was granted by the government for agricultural purposes and that the Chavan family was using the land continuously for the same purpose. Therefore, the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 were not applicable in the case. He, therefore, sought legal advice from the Law and Judiciary department of the Maharashtra government. On July 27, 1998, the deputy secretary, Law and Judiciary department, gave his opinion that there was no necessity to obtain prior sanction of the Union government if the forest land was already broken up and acquired before the Forest Conservation Act 1980 came into force. Accordingly, the state revenue minister sanctioned the allotment of the land and the state government issued an order on August 4, 1998 to that effect. On August 28, 1998, the District Collector issued a land allotment order subject to conditions that it will not be mortgaged, donated, sold, partitioned or exchanged, leased and bring the land into cultivation within a period of two years while clarifying the land can only be used for agriculture purpose. The builder's entry On October 30, 1999, the Divisional Commissioner gave permission to the Chavan family to sell the land to the promoter of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (RRCHS) to use it for the construction of private residences. It was revealed that the Chavan family had done transactions with promoters of the housing society on December 19, 1998 before they were given permission to sell. On July 8, 2005, the District Collector gave permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, which is the construction of residential buildings. The Pune Municipal Corporation on February 27, 2006 issued a commencement certificate and sanctioned the building plan. On July 3, 2007, the Union environment and forest ministry gave environmental clearance for the construction of a residential, shopping and IT complex on the land. Nagrik Chetna Manch challenges In 2007, city-based NGO Nagrik Chetna Manch challenged the allotment of reserved forest land to private persons and its use to construct multi-storeyed buildings in violation of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. Thus, the court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to enquire and submit a report in the matter. The state revenue and forest department issued a notice on July 2, 2008 to the RRCHS and members of the Chavan family informing them about the state government's decision to review its order of allotting the land to the 'Chavan family'. It also served a notice to the RRCHS notifying the possession of the land would have to be taken back. Meanwhile, the RRCHS challenged the state government decision in the court. CEC recommendations On November 27, 2008, the CEC recommended the cancellation of allotment of 11.89 hectare of reserve forest land in Kondhwa Budruk for agriculture purposes and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of the RRCHS and construction of buildings. It urged to restore the land back as a forest. It also recommended prosecuting senior functionaries and officials of the Maharashtra government responsible for the allotment or use of the reserve forest land in violation of provisions of the Forest Conservation Act. These senior functionaries included the then state revenue minister who approved the land allotment; the then Pune Divisional Commissioner who granted permission for sale of the land in favour of a private person for the construction of buildings; the then deputy conservator of forests, Pune, who issued no objection certificate not only here but in many other cases, facilitating the illegal use of forest land for private gain; and the developer, who entered into various development agreements for the purchase and use of the land for construction of buildings. It also recommended that a special investigation team (SIT) be constituted to examine the details of all reserve forest land under the control of the revenue department of Pune that had been allotted to be used without approval under the Forest Conservation Act. It recommended that all such allotments should be cancelled and those involved in such cases should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. Documents forged The RRCHS submitted a gazette notification dated March 9, 1944 to show that the land was not forest land and prayed for the proceedings to be disposed of. The state government said the gazette notification submitted in court was a fabricated document. Thus, the court ordered the CID on May 9, 2024 to inquire into it. On August 16, 2024 the CID submitted that the gazette document placed by the RRCHS was forged and not genuine. Court verdict The allotment of reserve forest land in Kondhwa Budruk for agriculture purposes and permission for its sale to the RRCHS was illegal, the SC ruled. The environment clearance by the Union environment and forest department was quashed. The land in possession of the revenue department should be handed over to the forest department within three months, the SC said. The chief secretaries of all states and administrators of all Union Territories have been directed to constitute SITs for examining as to whether any of the reserved forest land in possession of the revenue department has been allotted to any private individuals or institutions for any purpose other than forestry. State governments and UTs have been directed to take steps to take back forested land from persons or institutions in possession of these plots and hand over the same to the forest department. If retrieving this land is not in larger public interest, state governments and UTs should recover the cost of the land from the persons or institutions to whom they were allotted and use the amount for development of forests. Impact on Pune land A small portion of the reserved forest land has been developed by the RRCHS. In this case, the SC has allowed for the cost of land to be recovered if possession is not possible. 'The Supreme Court verdict might sound like forest area is protected, but in the case of Pune, the RRCHS has developed a section of the land, so it is likely the developed portion would exist by recovering land costs. This judgment has come after decades,' said civic activist Vijay Kumbhar. Moreover, the court has not accepted the recommendation of the CEC completely and has not issued directions to prosecute all those who were involved in illegally converting forest land for residential purposes, he added.
