Tribal people cheated out of land and compensation during relocation process from MTR stage protest in Ooty
The residents, who were part of a government effort to relocate them away from the tiger reserve, alleged that they were cheated by Forest Department staff, lawyers and land brokers during the relocation process.
K. Mahendran from the Tamil Nadu Tribal People's Association said a total of 574 families had been relocated so far from the tiger reserve in multiple phases, with 108 families still residing inside the reserve and refusing to move out. He said despite the Madras High Court directing the government in 2007 to ensure that the people were moved out within a year, that the Forest Department only began the process in earnest in 2016.
The activists claimed that the government did not follow rules laid down by the Wildlife Protection Act, the Forest Rights Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act while undertaking the relocation of the tribal families.
They called on the government to expedite the proceedings against the Forest Department staff, lawyers and land brokers who have been booked under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act, and against whom a case has been ongoing since 2019. The men were booked for cheating the Kattunayakan and Paniya residents from villages within the reserve.
They also wanted the government to help get them documents to the land that had been sold to them by the accused in the case. Another one of their demands was to stop demanding the relocation of the remaining tribal villages within the reserve, provide compensation to the children of residents who are now 18 years of age, increase compensation to ₹25 lakh to the people relocated from ₹10 lakh that was promised in 2008, among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
Maha CM directs completion of 5,000 MW projects under Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi Vahini Yojana 2.0 by September
Mumbai: Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, on Wednesday, directed the administration to complete the development of solar power projects with a capacity of 5,000 MW under the ambitious Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi Vahini Yojana 2.0 by September this year. He also said that there should not be a delay in achieving this target and instructed all the implementing agencies in the state to carry out the work of this scheme at a speedy and time-bound manner. He was speaking at the meeting organised here to review the land availability and other related issues during the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Saur Krishi Vahini Yojana 2.0. The state government under the Mukhymantri Saur Krushi Vahini Yojana 2.0 (MSKVY 2.0) has set an objective of 30 per cent feeder solarisation by 2025 as a 'Mission 2025' by implementing 7,000 MW decentralised solar projects on fast-track mode, wherein decentralised solar projects within the 5 to 10 km radius from agriculture load dominated distribution sub-station will be installed with the capacity from 0.5 to 25 MW for giving daytime power to farmers. Chief Minister Fadnavis said, "The Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi Vahini Yojana 2.0 scheme is my most ambitious scheme. Local agencies should work in coordination for solar projects being developed by private sector and the government undertakings. The district-level task force should review the current status of the work being done under this scheme from time to time. No-objection certificates should be obtained for the work to be done, and the problems faced by the developers should be resolved on priority." He also added that the district-wise work should be accelerated in such a way that up to 5,000 MW of electricity will be available through the Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi Vahini Yojana 2.0 scheme by September 2025. Chief Minister Fadnavis said that the District Collector should give priority to the work of granting leases of alternative lands, removing crop encroachments, removing encroachments of permanent structures, re-laying roads and timely measurement and demarcation of land as required, as well as issuing no-objection certificates to the gram panchayats. He directed the police to take immediate legal action in case of theft of solar project materials. He instructed the district administration and the implementing agencies to take proper care while working on the scheme in densely populated areas. Guidelines should be followed while cutting trees, if the power line passes through the forest area permission should be given by the Forest Department as soon as possible. He also said that the Forest Department should take action to issue no-objection permits for private and adjacent forest areas within the prescribed time.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was "no perversity" in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and called it a "botched up" investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Your conduct doesn't inspire confidence; why did you appear before panel: SC to Justice Varma
New Delhi, The Supreme Court told Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday that his conduct did not inspire confidence and asked why he chose to move the apex court after an in-house committee found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row. Your conduct doesn't inspire confidence; why did you appear before panel: SC to Justice Varma The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. The plea does not reveal Justice Varma's identity and is titled, "XXX v. The Union of India". Posing sharp questions to the judge, the top court asked Justice Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee and did not challenge it then and there. It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel's report. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the chief justice of India cannot be considered as a mere post office. "The Chief Justice of India is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If material comes to him regarding misconduct, he is only to inform the president and the prime minister. Nothing more. "If on the basis of the material, it is found that misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this court that CJI has the power to do so," Justice Datta remarked orally. The top court reserved its order on Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the CJI's recommendation for his removal. As the hearing commenced, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, referred to Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and said it lays down a complete procedure for the removal of a judge, and any parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism falls outside the framework of the Constitution. Article 124 deals with the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges, while Article 218 applies the same provisions to high court judges. He said the removal of a judge is governed by the Judges Act and an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. Sibal submitted that the in-house inquiry panel's recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional. He said the in-house inquiry is merely an administrative procedure and it lacks the safeguards of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, such as strict standards of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Stating that a recommendation for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent, Sibal said a recommendation for removal from the CJI "sounds the death knell" for a judge. Countering Sibal's argument, Justice Datta said three judgments have reaffirmed the in-house procedure after it came into force. The in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, Justice Datta said. When the bench asked what relief Justice Varma was seeking, Sibal replied that he wanted a declaration that the CJI's recommendation for Justice Varma's removal was "non-est" and unconstitutional. Justice Datta said that relief cannot stop the proceedings at this stage. Sibal said when the CJI recommends the removal of a judge on the basis of an in-house procedure which holds great persuasive value. "Since it comes from a high constitutional authority, which can influence the process in Parliament, by making such a recommendation, the CJI is interfering with the domain of Parliament," Sibal said. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, Sibal said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "What would I come to court for?" he said. "The points you are raising are major, but could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot," the bench remarked. "The tapes have been put on the website. Does that mean everything is vitiated and you will go scot-free?" the bench said. "The problem is that the report emanates from the CJI's office and if I show you the statements, please see the statements by the political parties. The statements say the committee has forced us to move the motion," Sibal said. "The in-house committee report is a preliminary report and cannot affect future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports," Justice Datta said. "But I cannot challenge the committee report there in Parliament," Sibal said. "If some Parliamentarian says something, even if he is a minister, it matters little," the bench added. "You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there," the top court said. The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police with a formal complaint before seeking the registration of an FIR. It also reserved its order on a separate petition filed by Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
