“Land Acquisition Law” facilitates the acquisition of privately held land by the government agencies for public purposes and the grant of a government-fixed compensation to cover losses incurred by landowners from surrendering the same. Land Acquisition has three dimensions to it- right to compensation of the landowner, the public interest at large and acquisitions by the Government. The Land Acquisition Laws in India has seen various facets. From being governed by a 120 year old British Law, The Land Acquisition Act 1894(1 OF 1894), followed by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) and to the present day Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 2015 which was passed …show more content…
The scope of the Act includes all land acquisition whether it is done by the Central Government of India, or any State Government. The Land Acquisition (amendment) Billwas introduced in the parliamentto ratify the ordinance which was passed on 31th December, 2014 - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement,(amendment) Ordinance,2014. The Ordinance The 2013 Act came into operation from 01.01.2014 but since then has faced many difficulties in its implementation. In order to remove them, certain amendments were needed to further strengthen the provisions and to protect the interests of the ‘affected families’. In addition, procedural difficulties in the acquisition of lands required for important national projects were to be safeguarded against. The ordinance and further the bill was introduced to meet this very need. The Constitution of India, under Article 123, provides that ‘If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to …show more content…
Adds that the LARR Authority must hold its hearing in the district where the land acquisition is taking place, after receiving reference from the Collector and giving notice of this reference to all concerned parties. 8. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will continue to apply in certain cases, when an award has been made under it. The 2013 Act will apply in case an award has been made five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. The Bill states that in calculating the five year time period, any period where possession of land was taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account, will not be counted. The amendments change ‘account’ to ‘designated account’. 9. The Bill states that if an offence is committed by a government employee he cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government, as provided in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The amendments state that the government employee can be prosecuted if procedure laid down in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is followed. Section 197 requires the prior sanction of the government prior to prosecuting a public
The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...
Allotments could be sold after a statutory period (25 years), and “surplus” land. not allotted was opened to settlers. Within decades following the passage of the act the vast majority of what had been tribal land in the West was in white hands. The act also established a trust fund to collect and distribute proceeds from oil, mineral, timber, and grazing. leases on Native American lands.
War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia Commons. The War Powers Resolution states that the President s powers as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces (War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance).... ... middle of paper ... ...
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
At the commencement of European settlement, Australia inherited the system of land law that existed in England. Before the introduction of Torrens in 1875, a system of registration of deeds was in place in Western Australia. This is a system under which instruments relating to property transactions are recorded on a central register. In Western Australia, priority is decided according to the date of registration, and there is no stipulation concerning the bona fides or valuable consideration given by the...
As Vance Hughston writes “the major problem with the system for resolving native title claims is not hard to identify. It is the significant time and resources needed to resolve those native title claims which are opposed by government and other respondents” (Calma, 2009). Therefore, it is evident that the Native Title procedure needs some reforms to counteract the unjust requirements set out in section 223 of the Native Title Act 1933 (Cth). Within this section, it clearly expresses the marginal requirements imposed on the Native Title claimants – particularly subsection C. This subsection outlines the ongoing relationship that a native title claimant would have to sustain in order to be eligible for a possible trial. However, it poses many problematic and difficult situations towards the claimant, as they have to prove a continuous relationship with the land since sovereignty. In addition, section 237 of the Native Title Act states that the land mustn’t be partially or wholly extinguished by Government actions. If wholly extinguished, i.e. when claimants want areas such as “privately owned freehold land, pastoral or agricultural leases, residential, commercial, community purposes and in areas where governments have built roads, airports, railways, schools and other public works”, the
Despite protecting millions of acres of wilderness, this act provided for the numerous groups of people affected by the establishment of this law. Stipulations regarding the use of protected lands by private landowners were made. People living inside the park lands were guaranteed the right to subsistence hunting and fishing, as well as the guaranteed access to their lands. This right of access is the main concern for this argument, as it is a major management issue for park officials and land owners alike.
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall...
The distribution of Government lands had been an issue since the Revolutionary War. Early methods for allocating unsettled land outside the original 13 colonies were chaotic. Boundaries were established by stepping off plots from geographical landmarks. As a result, overlapping claims and border disputes were common. The Land Ordinance of 1785 finally implemented a standardized system of Federal land surveys that eased boundary conflicts. Territories were divided into a 6-mile square called a township prior to settlement. The township was divided into 36 sections, each measuring 1 square mile or 640 acres each. Sale of public land was viewed as a means to generate revenue for the Government rather than as a way to encourage settlement. Initially, an individual was required to purchase a full section of land at the cost of $1 per acre for 640 acres. The investment needed to purchase these large plots and the massive amount of physical labor required to clear the land for agriculture were often insurmountable obstacles.
Law reform in the area of Native title has led to the recognition of indigenous land right which has Native title
person receiving the land, had to go through ceremony in which they would say that they
Apparently McLaughlin did not think so and felt that by the action of Mr. Heikklia by changing the cost of parcels mean that they were without a “meeting of the minds.” There was no deal since the land transaction was not in writing. Then Mr. McLaughlin sued Mr. Heikklia on the grounds “to compel specific performance of the purchase agreements under the terms of the agreements before Heikkila withdrew his offer” (Cheeseman, 2013).
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
The purpose of enacting The Land Registration Act 2002, was to combat the uncertainties evolved around the previous Act, Land Registration Act 1925 . The need for reforms was highlighted in a report by Law Commission known as Land Registration for the 21st Century: a Conveyancing Revolution . LRA 2002 repealed LRA 1925, not only simplify the law by maintaining an accurate record of all the rights and alongside interests held by others that affect the land, but also to give certainty the basic concepts engrossed by the 1925 Act as it can be very clearly evident that 2002 Act revolves around the original and principle ideas with amendments.