Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a. The right not to be deprived of ones property save by authority of law has since
been no longer a fundamental right. Thus, if government issues a fiat to take
away the property of a person, that person has no right to move the Supreme
Court under Art 32.
b. Moreover, no one can challenge the reasonableness of the restriction imposed
by any law the legislature made to deprive the person of his property.
8. The aims and objectives of the Act include:
a. To ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram
Sabhas established under the Constitution of India, a humane, participative,
informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation,
development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the
least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families
b. Provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has
and resettlement
d. Ensure that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that
10.
vii)
In addition to the above compensation and entitlements under the proposed LARR
2011, scheduled caste and schedule tribe (SC/ST) families will be entitled to several
other additional benefits per Schedule II of the proposed bill. India has over 250
million people protected and classified as SC/ST, about 22% of its total population.
The proposed additional benefits to these families include: [11]
viii)
ix)
x)
18.
LARR 2011 places no limit on total compensation or number of
claimants; nor does it place any statute of limitations on claims or claimants.
[24]
The beneficiaries of the Bill, with guaranteed jobs for 26 years, will have
no incentive to be productive. The Bill should place a limit on total value of
entitlement benefits that can be annually claimed per acre, this entitlement
pool should then be divided between the affected families, and the
government should run this program if it is considered to be fair.
19.
LARR 2011 as proposed severely curtails free market transactions
between willing sellers and willing buyers. For example, DLF Limited India's
largest real estate developer claims that the current bill may limit private
companies such as DLF from developing affordable housing for millions of
Indians. DLF suggests that direct land transactions with owners on a willing
voluntary basis, at market-determined rate, should be kept out of the purview
of the bill.[25] There should be no conditions imposed on free market
transactions between willing sellers and willing buyers.