Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Statutory Authorities Are Bound To Not Only Pay Adequate Compensation But Also Rehabilitate Displaced Persons'

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous qFWInco8c
    41 views9 pages
    The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the delay in payment of compensation to farmers for acquired land. Such delays amount to deprivation of livelihood in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees right to life. While land acquisition for industrial development is valid, the state still has an obligation to complete proceedings quickly and pay compensation. Depriving farmers of land without payment or rehabilitation would undermine their fundamental rights and force them into destitution or criminal acts out of frustration. In the case presented, farmers in Maharashtra had their land acquired decades ago but were never paid compensation, violating their right to livelihood and equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court ordered authorities to expedite the acquisition process and award compensation with interest to the farmers

    Original Description:

    art 21

    Original Title

    tribal rights

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the delay in payment of compensation to farmers for acquired land. Such delays amount to deprivation of livelihood in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees right to life. While land acquisition for industrial development is valid, the state still has an obligation to complete proceedings quickly and pay compensation. Depriving farmers of land without payment or rehabilitation would undermine their fundamental rights and force them into destitution or criminal acts out of frustration. In the case presented, farmers in Maharashtra had their land acquired decades ago but were never paid compensation, violating their right to livelihood and equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court ordered authorities to expedite the acquisition process and award compensation with interest to the farmers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views9 pages

    Statutory Authorities Are Bound To Not Only Pay Adequate Compensation But Also Rehabilitate Displaced Persons'

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous qFWInco8c
    The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the delay in payment of compensation to farmers for acquired land. Such delays amount to deprivation of livelihood in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees right to life. While land acquisition for industrial development is valid, the state still has an obligation to complete proceedings quickly and pay compensation. Depriving farmers of land without payment or rehabilitation would undermine their fundamental rights and force them into destitution or criminal acts out of frustration. In the case presented, farmers in Maharashtra had their land acquired decades ago but were never paid compensation, violating their right to livelihood and equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court ordered authorities to expedite the acquisition process and award compensation with interest to the farmers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    Statutory authorities are bound to not only pay adequate compensation but also

    rehabilitate displaced persons


    The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern at the inordinate delay in payment of
    compensation to farmers for land, holding that it amounts to deprivation of livelihood, which is a
    violation of Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. Even under valid acquisition
    proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete the proceedings
    at the earliest and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals, etc, are required to
    be decided expeditiously for the sole reason that if a person is not paid compensation in time, he
    will be unable to purchase any land or other immovable property, said a Bench of Justices B.S.
    Chauhan and J.S. Khehar.
    Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan said: It is not permissible for any welfare state to uproot
    a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights under the garb of
    industrial development. A welfare state governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a
    status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Statutory authorities are not only bound
    to pay adequate compensation but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such
    persons. The non-fulfilment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the uprooted
    persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would
    be born in them on account of ill-treatment without its [the state] resorting to any procedure
    prescribed by law, without the court realising that the enrichment of a welfare state or of its
    instrumentalities, at the cost of poor farmers, is not permissible, particularly when done at the
    behest of the state itself.
    In the instant case, the appellant farmers [in Maharashtra] belonged to a class which did not
    have any other vocation or any business/calling to fall back upon for earning their livelihood.
    Depriving them of their immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21. The appellants
    have been deprived of their legitimate dues for about half a century. In such a fact situation, we
    fail to understand for which class of citizens the Constitution provides guarantees and rights in
    this regard and what is the exact percentage of the citizens of this country to whom
    constitutional/statutory benefits are accorded in accordance with the law. The appellants have
    been seriously discriminated against qua other persons, whose land was also acquired. Some of
    them were given the benefits of acquisition, including compensation in 1966. This kind of
    discrimination not only breeds corruption but also disrespect for governance as it leads to
    frustration and, to a certain extent, forces persons to take the law into their own hands.
    The Bench said: The appellants were deprived of their immovable property in 1964, when Article
    31 was still intact and the right to property was part of fundamental rights under Article 19. It is
    pertinent to note that even after the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, taking
    possession of or acquiring the property of a citizen was, most certainly, tantamount to
    deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with the law, as the said
    word has specifically been used in Article 300-A. Such deprivation can be [done] only by
    resorting to a procedure prescribed by a statute. The same cannot be done by way of an executive
    fiat or order or administration caprice.
    The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation sought to acquire the lands of Tukaram
    Kana Joshi and others without fully complying with the formalities. They were unable to get any
    compensation or even, for that matter, any other land. The Bombay High Court did not provide
    them any relief either.

    Disposing of their appeals, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to complete the
    acquisition proceedings expeditiously, declare the compensation/award at current market value
    and make payments to the claimants/persons interested immediately.
    Keywords: compensation to farmers, land acquisition, deprivation of livelihood, Article
    21, Supreme Court
    SYNOPSIS
    Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a very familiar fundamental right, applicable to all persons under Part III of
    the Constitution of India. Meaning of term life is defined in Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 11, Field, J. spoke of the right
    to life in the following words:
    By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its
    deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
    mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any
    other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with outer world.
    This article applies to even non-citizen of India. The Supreme Court has emphasized that even those who come
    to India as tourists also
    have right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity, just as the State is under an obligation to protect
    the life of every citizen in this country, so also the State is under an obligation to protect the life of the persons
    who are not citizen.(Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988)
    ARTICLE 21: PROTECTS LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
    Article 21 of constitution of India, read as:
    Protection of Life and Personal Liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
    according to procedure established by law.
    As, article lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according toprocedure
    established by law. This means that no person can be denied to life or personal liberty and restraint can be put
    only with procedure prescribed by law.
    In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1996 SC 1234 the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was
    challenged. The question arose that whether Article 21 provides any procedure of law enacted by legislature, or
    such procedure should be fair or reasonable. The Supreme Court held that the Act is valid and according to the
    due process of the law.
    Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 is a landmark case of the post-emergency period. This case
    witnessed a great transformation has come about in judicial attitude towards the protection of personal liberty
    after the traumatic experiences of the emergency during 1975-77 when personal liberty had reached in nadir.
    In this case, the passport was impounded under section 10 (3) (c) of the Passport Act, in the interest of general
    public. Maneka filed a writ petition challenging impoundment under Article 21. Maneka Gandhi case completely
    overrides the Gopalan view which had held for nearly three decades. Since Maneka, the Supreme Court has
    again and again underlined the theme that Article 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive, but theysustain,
    strengthen and nourish each other.
    RIGHT TO LIFE EXTENDS TO LIVELIHOOD

    In 1960, the Apex Court was of the view that Article 21 of Indian Constitution does not guarantee right to
    livelihood.
    In Re Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932 a case which arose before Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court ruled that the
    right to livelihood would not fall within the expression life in Article 21. The Court said curtly:
    The argument that the word life in Article 21 of the Constitution includes livelihood has only to be rejected.
    The question of livelihood has not in terms been dealt with by Article 21.
    Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 is case was brought by pavement dwellers to
    resist eviction of their habitat by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, that the right to livelihood is born out of the
    right to life, as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court has
    observed in this connection:
    .the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only
    one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide
    and far-reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the
    imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but
    one aspect of the right to life an equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person
    can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
    If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
    depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
    CONCLUSION
    Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would
    make life impossible to live. And yet such deprivation of life would not be in accordance with the procedure
    established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life.
    Right to work has not yet been recognised as a Fundamental Right. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
    (3), AIR 2006 SC 1806 the argument of infringement on an expansive interpretation of Article 21 i.e., the right of
    employment was not accepted by the Supreme Court and the reason for that was amongst others, that the
    employees accepted the employment on their own violation and with eyes open as to the nature their
    employment. The Court also rejected the argument that the right to life under Article 21 would include the right of
    employment at the present point of time.

    19
    Food Security and Livelihoods
    The Millennium Development Goals

    The Millennium Development Goals, adopted in September 2000 by 189 countries,


    include eight goalsdivided into 18 quantied targets for addressing extreme poverty.
    The various goals and targets are inter-related and adopt a holistic approach to
    tackling large issues such as income poverty, hunger, health,education, gender, and
    sustainable development.
    Millennium development goals:
    MDG 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger MDG 2 Achieve
    universal primary education MDG 3 Promote gender equality and
    empower women MDG 4 Reduce child mortality MDG
    5 Improve maternal health MDG 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria
    and other diseases MDG 7 Ensure environmental sustainability
    MDG 8 Develop a Global Partnership for Development
    ANNEX
    03

    20

    Food Security and Livelihoods


    The Sphere Project
    The Sphere project was launched in 1997 by non-governmental organizations and
    the International RedCross and Red Crescent Movements to dene minimum
    humanitarian standards in disaster response. Theemphasis is on meeting urgent
    survival needs for people affected by disasters, while asserting their basichuman
    right to life with dignity. The Sphere handbook compiles the steps and indicators to
    consider in diverse sectors of aid. Its successled to the inclusion of a chapter on food
    security (2004 edition) in addition to food aid. ACF-IN contributedto the development
    of the handbook, which reects current practice in ACF-IN food security and
    livelihoodprogramming, and supports the use of the minimum standards to ensure
    quality assessments andappropriate interventions in disasters.
    Contents of sphere handbook
    What is Sphere?The Humanitarian Charter
    Chapter 1: Minimum Standards Common to All SectorsChapter 2: Minimum Standards in
    Water, Sanitation and Hygiene PromotionChapter 3: Minimum Standards in Food Security,
    Nutrition and Food AidChapter 4: Minimum Standards in Shelter, Settlement
    and Non-Food ItemsChapter 5: Minimum Standards in Health Services
    Annexes
    1. Legal Instruments Underpinning the Sphere Handbook2. The Code of Conduct for
    the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movementsand Non-Governmental
    Organisations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief3. Acknowledgements4. Acronyms
    IndexSphere Project informationFeedback form
    The full document can be found at http://www.sphereproject.org.
    ANNEX
    04

    21
    Food Security and Livelihoods
    Do No Harm
    The Do No Harm project was initially set up in the early 1990s to learn
    how assistance provided in conictsituations interacts with conict conditions and
    can be used and/or misused in the pursuit of political ormilitary advantage. The
    concept of Do No Harm has evolved to guard against the undesired effects of
    aidinterventions, such as creation of social tensions, changing cultural or local
    habits, or negatively impactingthe environment. ACF-IN food security programming
    minimises these undesired consequences through thorough contextualanalysis
    conducted during the development stages of a project, as well as ongoing monitoring
    duringprogram implementation, in order to make the necessary adjustments should
    negative consequences beobserved.For more information and the DNH handbook
    visit:http://www.cdainc.com/dnh/docs/DoNoHarmHandbook.pdf

    You might also like