Punjab govt's move to acquire land under land pooling policy under HC lens
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab government's land pooling policy, under which the state planned to acquire thousands of acres of land from across the state for developing residential and industrial zones, was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The petitioners in this case submitted to the HC that the move to acquire such a large chunk of land would have widespread negative effects on the agrarian economy of Punjab, which is a major contributor to the nation's food grain supply.
During the hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the HC was informed that the said policy is directly contrary to the spirit and mandate of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), which is a central legislation.
It was also submitted that the land pooling policy is being used as a tool to acquire fertile agricultural land across the state of Punjab while circumventing the mandatory procedures laid down under the LARR Act 2013, such as conducting a Social Impact Assessment (Section 4) and Environmental Impact Assessment. The LARR Act 2013 (Section 10) categorically bars the acquisition of fertile agricultural land in the ordinary course and only as a last resort.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
My Brows Look Fuller Looking Now [See Results]
NULASTIN
Learn More
Undo
The case was heard for around half and hour by the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu.
Responding to the plea, the counsel for the Punjab govt contended that the land pooling policy was notified under the 2025 policy, not under the LARR Act 2013, as argued by the petitioner. On this, the Chief Justice's bench advised the counsel for the petitioner to amend the petition accordingly to challenge the acquisition of land as per the 2025 policy.
The matter was adjourned for August 19 for further hearing.
'Now we will amend the petition challenging the land pooling policy 2025. Although we tried to convince the court that there is not much difference, on the advice of the bench, we will amend our petition accordingly. The matter has now been fixed for August 19 for further hearing,' counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Sahir Singh Virk, told TOI.
The matter reached the HC in the wake of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Naveender P K Singh of Mohali and Samita Kaur of Ludhiana. The petitioners have mainly prayed for quashing the impugned notifications dated July 4 and to restrain the state of Punjab from proceeding with the land pooling policy without adhering to the due process of law under the LARR Act, especially when such fertile agricultural land is at stake.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
25% tariff a negotiation tool; India must use August talks wisely: Anurag Singh
"Ultimately, the 25% tariff — half of it could be absorbed by Indian exporters, and the rest by American importers. So, again, it's manageable. I see it as a conscious decision by the Indian government, and one we should be okay with," says Anurag Singh , Managing Partner, Ansid Capital. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Data Analytics Project Management Operations Management Others Product Management CXO Design Thinking others healthcare Management Healthcare Data Science Leadership Data Science Cybersecurity Finance Public Policy Technology MBA MCA Skills you'll gain: Data Analysis & Visualization Predictive Analytics & Machine Learning Business Intelligence & Data-Driven Decision Making Analytics Strategy & Implementation Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Applied Business Analytics Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo Our top story today — Trump slapping a 25% tariff on India . This move has surprised not just India but the rest of the world as well. If there was any country that could have struck a better deal, it was India. With this announcement, do you think this is some sort of pressure tactic — a way for Trump to push India into negotiating a deal on his terms? Is this perhaps more temporary in nature? Anurag Singh: I'm a little surprised by the notion that India was in the best position to strike a deal. Every other major trading partner among the top 10 with the United States has already struck a deal — except India. So, it was inevitable that some kind of tariff was coming. Threats only work to a certain point. Once a deadline is set, if Trump had deferred even this one, it would have looked weak on his part. So, in that context, it's not a big deal. This is a choice India made. Yes, it is a pressure tactic, of course. If tomorrow India agrees to what the US administration wants — say, opening certain sectors — then the tariff could be reduced from 25% to 20%, even down to 15%, depending on what India is willing to offer. But the problem is, it's not very clear what India was actually willing to put on the table. We've heard about India's red lines — what it wouldn't accept — but not much about what it would concede. In that absence, this decision doesn't feel like a big loss. If this is the choice India made, that's fine. We should accept it and move on. Live Events Ultimately, the 25% tariff — half of it could be absorbed by Indian exporters, and the rest by American importers. So, again, it's manageable. I see it as a conscious decision by the Indian government, and one we should be okay with. As you've pointed out, it seems to be a conscious choice. But India and the US have been in talks for a long time, and we've heard that the next round of discussions is expected in August when a US delegation visits India. With the 25% tariff announcement coming yesterday, do you think this signals a breakdown in negotiations, or is it simply a negotiating tactic? Anurag Singh: No, there's no breakdown here. Let's understand this — most countries already face around 20% tariffs. So India getting hit with 25% isn't out of the ordinary. Look at countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam — even the European Union. The EU accepted a 15% tariff after essentially opening its economy to near free trade with the US. So in comparison, if India got 25% and didn't have to open much more of its economy beyond what it's already importing, that's not a bad outcome. That said, when the US delegation visits, the focus will likely be on addressing the $40 billion trade deficit the US has with India. India exports about $85 billion worth of goods to the US and imports around $45 billion — leaving a gap of $40 billion. I'm sure the US administration will push for India to buy more to help bridge that gap. Likely suggestions will include buying more aircraft from Boeing or more energy products. But the latter might not work, as US energy prices may not be competitive for India. So realistically, buying more aircraft or defense equipment is what's likely. And that's not unreasonable — India does need both. So if those purchases help balance trade, it could be a win-win.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Zohran Mamdani under fire over past ‘defund the NYPD' remarks; shifts stance after visiting fallen NYC officer's family; old posts resurface online
Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani faces criticism for visiting the family of fallen NYPD officer Didarul Islam due to his past support for defunding the police. Critics accuse Mamdani of shifting his stance for political gain, especially after his 2020 tweets resurfaced. Mamdani defends his actions, clarifying his current position on public safety and police funding. Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is facing backlash after visiting the family of fallen NYPD officer Didarul Islam, as critics pointed to his past 2020 tweet supporting "defund the police" stance. The controversy erupted after Mamdani, who recently returned from a trip to Uganda, visited the grieving family of officer Islam, one of four victims killed in a mass shooting in Midtown Manhattan. The shooter, Shane Tamura, opened fire on Monday, killing Islam and three others before shooting himself. Sharing a post on X, Mamdani wrote: 'Two days ago, an act of senseless violence took the lives of Officer Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Aland Etienne, and Julia Hyman. Today, I visited Officer Islam's family and learned of his legacy. I ask you to join me in honoring the memory of these four New Yorkers.' However, the post quickly drew criticism, with users referencing Mamdani's previous tweets during the height of the 'Defund the Police' movement in 2020. Many accused him of changing his stance for political gain. One user wrote, 'You can't go from defund the police to never mind I love the police. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Luxury Awaits at Paras Floret | Paras Sector 59 Gurgaon Paras The Florett Book Now Undo You're asking New Yorkers to forgo their guns meanwhile you just had a wedding in Uganda with armed guards.' While another posted, 'Zohran Mamdani exposed as a total fraud. Mocking cops, calling them racist, then acting like he cares? No loyalty to America. He belongs in Uganda, not leading NYC. Deport him and protect our city!' Earlier at a press conference following his visit to the officer's home in The Bronx, Mamdani addressed the criticism and attempted to clarify his position saying: 'I am not defunding the police; I am not running to defund the police.' 'Over the course of this race, I've been very clear about my view of public safety and the critical role that the police have in creating that public safety,' he added. Standing alongside members of the Bangladeshi American Police Association—of which Officer Islam was a member—and labor union 32BJ, which represented another victim, Aland Etienne, Mamdani tried to strike a unifying tone. During the peak of the "Defund the Police" movement in 2020, Zohran Mamdani repeatedly called for major cuts to the NYPD budget. In one post, he wrote, 'We don't need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety. What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD.' In another, he said, 'There is no negotiating with an institution this wicked & corrupt. Defund it. Dismantle it. End the cycle of violence,' referencing budget talks around proposed NYPD cuts. Now, Mamdani has distanced himself from those remarks. When asked about them, he responded, 'My statements in 2020 were made amidst a frustration that many New Yorkers held at the murder of George Floyd.' Mamdani claimed that his current stance is more nuanced, stating that his previous posts were 'clearly out of step' with his recent campaign platform. He now supports maintaining the NYPD headcount while reducing its overtime budget. Despite this clarification, skepticism remains. Many police officers and political observers have accused Mamdani of shifting positions purely for political gain in a city where public safety remains a top concern for voters, New York Post reported. Adding to the political firestorm, former Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Eric Adams, who are both trailing Mamdani in early polling for the 2025 mayoral race, weighed in shortly after the shooting. Mamdani fired back, accusing Cuomo of politicising the tragedy saying, 'It is beyond me that politicians are looking to use these days to score such cynical political points, on the very day that I held the father of Officer Islam in my arms and he could not utter a single word.' 'For the former governor to spend an entire day speaking almost exclusively about me and barely about the New Yorkers who have been killed is indicative of the very politics New Yorkers want to leave in the past,' he added. All three, Mamdani, Cuomo, and Adams are expected to attend officer Islam's funeral on Thursday.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump-Medvedev war erupts, US President blasts 'failed former' Russian leader to 'watch his words' after Putin's aide mocked Ukraine deadline
A war of words has started between US President Donald Trump and former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Trump issued a warning to the former Russian President and close ally of Vladimir Putin, telling him to 'watch his words.' A couple of days back, Medvedev heavily criticized Trump's handling of U.S.-Russia tensions on the US ultimatum to Russia to stop the 'killing' in Ukraine and drew a provocative comparison to Israel and Iran. Trump announced on July 14 that he would implement "severe tariffs" on Russia unless a peace deal is reached by early September. Also Read: The $1 Million question that helped Matt Damon bring clean water to 200,000 people and tease Jimmy Kimmel by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo Then, on July 28, he indicated that he was now giving Putin 10 to 12 days to make progress, meaning he expects peace efforts to advance by August 7-9. This new timeline shortens the 50-day deadline he had initially set for the Russian leader just two weeks earlier. Live Events Reacting to the post on July 28, Medvedev said on X: 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' In response, President Trump, who just imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports, fired back and mocked Medvedev in a strongly worded post: 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care… Let's keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' Trump's remarks came amid mounting scrutiny of India's growing ties with Moscow and coincided with a broader shift in his administration's foreign policy posture. Medvedev, who served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012, remains a high-ranking official as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council and one of the most vocal supporters of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Once seen as a moderate within the Kremlin, he has taken a hard nationalist turn, routinely attacking Western leaders and mocking Trump's past statements. Earlier this month, on July 8, Medvedev posted sarcastically on Telegram about Trump's shifting positions: 'The top American is riding his favorite political rollercoaster again… 'I am pleased with my conversation with Putin.' / 'I'm very disappointed.' 'We are not supplying weapons to Ukraine.' / 'We will send more.' Push forward. Reclaim our land. Work for Victory.' And on May 27, Medvedev had issued another thinly veiled warning on the platform X after Trump said Putin was 'playing with fire': 'I only know of one REALLY BAD thing — WWIII. I hope Trump understands this!'
