The Supreme Court of India Defends the Village Commons | David Bollier

The Supreme Court of India Defends the Village Commons | David Bollier





While common lands and waters are being stolen by investors and developers the world over, the Supreme Court of India decided it was not going to look the other way. In a bold, surprising ruling, the Court made a sweeping defense of the commons as commons.

In the January 28 decision, the Court held that the enclosure of a village pond in Rohar Jagir, Tehsil, in the State of Punjab, by real estate developers was a totally illegal occupation of the commons. The developers, who were appealing a lower court ruling, had filled in the pond with soil and started building houses on it. The Court ruled in unmistakable terms that the pond/land must revert to the commoners immediately and the illegal occupiers must be evicted. Even more remarkable, the Court held that similar enclosures of common lands elsewhere in India must be reversed even if they have been in effect for years. 


You can read the 12-page decision by Markandey Katju here [pdf file]. Given the ideological capture of American jurisprudence, it is astonishing and inspirational for me to encounter a no-nonsense affirmation of the rights of commoners by the highest court of any nation.

The Indian Supreme Court started by recognizing the ancient history of the commons in India and its vital importance (the paragraphs are numbered in the style of legal documents).

3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, varioiusly called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India) Kalam, Maidan, etc., depending on the nature of the user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponders for various purposes, e.g., for their cattle to drink and bathe for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyard, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers, and members of the scheduled castes/tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.

4. The protection of commons rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. [Editor’s note: This is essentially the same legal principle as the “public trust doctrine” in American environmental law.]

5. What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. (emphasis in original) People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with the active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.

The justices proceed to note that the appellants [the real estate developers] “are neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question,” but “are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the land…. [who] appear to have filled in the village pond and made constructions thereon.”

When the enclosure of the village pond was brought to the attention of the village Collector, Patiala, he “surprisingly held that it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them,” the Court writes. Instead, the Collector told the commoners to “recover the cost of the land” from the trespassers. “Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents have spent huge money on constructing houses on the said land,” the Court writes.

Later in the ruling, as if to emphasize the crime of enclosure, the Court revisits the timeless importance of the commons and the morally offensive, ecologically harmful results of enclosure:

17. We wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

18. Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character. This has contributed to the water shortages in the country.

19. Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop.

In the end, the Indian Supreme Court struck down the enclosers’ appeal with a clear declaration that the commons must revert to the commoners:

We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village…. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the authorized occupation has subsisted for many years.

The Court’s ruling is a welcome affirmation of the commons, of course, but its implications for enclosed commons throughout India are uncertain. As a knowledgeable Indian friend of mine noted, rich and poor alike have enclosed common lands in India. In the cases where the rich have built homes on those lands, it may be very difficult as a practical matter to evict them at this point, notwithstanding the Court’s statement, “Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession.” The politics of actualizing the Court's ruling represents a major challenge.

Still, one could have worse problems. For once, the value of the commons and the rights of the commoners have been upheld by the highest court of a major nation. That's amazing. If this ruling catalyzes better management of the commons for the commoners -- and a recognition that the commons has affirmative value, and should not be dismissed as a mere "wasteland" -- it will be a significant achievement.

Pothole Free Road is fundamental right - Bombay High Court

Year 2006-

High Court a two-judge bench in 2006 said, citizens' right to pothole-free roads is a fundamental right under right to life which creates corresponding obligation in all the authorities which are "state" under the Constitution

Year 2013 –

Bombay High Court took the suo motu PIL 
Justice Gautam Patel wrote to Chief Justice Mohit Shah to highlight the plight of motorists and pedestrians in Mumbai given the "pathetic'' condition of its potholed roads.

In a landmark interim order, the Bombay high court held that right to good roads is a fundamental right of citizens under right to life and held that it was the state's statutory obligation to provide good roads.

"It is high time that all concerned clearly understand that a right to have properly maintained roads is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in the event any loss is caused due to its violation, the citizens have a right to seek compensation,''

Bench directed the civic administrations in Mumbai, Thane and three other municipalities in Thane district, as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) and Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) to maintain all roads under their control and keep them pothole-free.

The HC laid down a detailed mechanism outlining legal obligations of all the authorities. On the duty to maintain smooth roads, the HC directed that "it is the mandatory duty of municipal corporations and other authorities like MMRDA and MbPT to construct, maintain and improve public streets.''

Citizens have a right to complain about poor roads, especially potholes on the roads.

"There has to be a dedicated website to receive and track complaints and their effective redressal,''
"The third aspect is of the use of proper technology for the construction of the roads, for maintenance and for filling the potholes,''
"The legal obligation of MSRDC is to maintain the roads and bridges in proper condition and to repair the same effectively.

It is its obligation to address the grievances of the citizens and to ensure the same are redressed if not within 15 days, but at least within a reasonable time,''

The HC directed that the BMC and all other authorities must construct roads and fill potholes "scientifically" and while permitting digging of any road, the agency's name and duration must be prominently displayed at the site.

All municipal corporations as well as the MMRDA, MSRDC and MbPT shall provide a mechanism for citizens to complain about poor road conditions through mails and photos at designated centres, toll free numbers, and dedicated websites and SMS services through the year

The HC called for compliance with regard to a set of directions by July 6. The agencies which will have to report back include the BMC, MbPT, the MSRDC and MMRDA.

Source: http://www.realityviews.in/2015/05/bombay-high-court-pothole-free-road-is.html?m=1


Pothole-free roads and properly levelled footpaths are fundamental rights of every citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and in the event any loss caused due to its violation, the citizens have the right to seek compensation."

"It is the obligation of the authorities concerned to maintain the footpaths properly levelled and in such a condition that it can be conveniently used by pedestrians. This aspect cannot be taken lightly by any authority," the High Court said.

As of now the BMC has a helpline that operates for just four months (June 7-Oct 7). This, the court held, was not correct. The government and agencies should act on the complaint withing two weeks and post on the websites the action taken report. "Unless there is an effective mechanism provided to the citizens to file complaints they will not be in a position to enforce their constitutional as well as legal right to have well-maintained streets," the bench observed.

The court held that the authorities cannot put the blame on monsoon for the bad roads as the monsoon is normally heavy in the city. It directed the government to file affidavits to state the measures taken to ensure quality of the road maintenance works. It also directed the state and authorities to issue a circular to its officials dealing with the works that the failure to maintain the public roads, footpaths and bridges may lead to loss of precious lives, loss of valuable working hours and fuel, apart from causing inconvenience to the public. The circular should also caution that disciplinary action will be initiated against the erring officials.

The High Court will further hear the matter on July 10.


Source:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-good-roads-a-fundamental-right-onus-on-maharashtra-government-to-ensure-it-bombay-high-court-2087709

ISIS– Largest, Richest $2Billion Terror-Based Enterprise: Financial Sophistication Rivaling Wall Street

ISIS– Largest, Richest $2Billion Terror-Based Enterprise: Financial Sophistication Rivaling Wall Street

Here’s how Phillips said the ISIS oil operation works: ISIS sells oil to consumers in territory it controls, roughly the size of Maryland, inside Syria and Iraq. The terrorist group also sells oil to network of smugglers that developed in the 1990s during Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s rule; that network smuggled oil out of Iraq to Turkey to avoid sanctions imposed by the UN. ISIS also reportedly sells oil, through middlemen, to Assad regime… When it comes to making a fast buck, the Middle East has no shortage of ‘strange bedfellows’ willing to do business with each other…

The growth of ISIS has been quite incredible: They are armed with– modern weapons, large fighting army, and an effective organization. All of which is bought and paid with real money supplied through a highly sophisticated funding strategy… According to Senator Rubio; ISIS’s criminal activities– robbery, extortion, and trafficking– have helped them become the best funded terrorist group in history. The wealth has helped expand their operational capacity and incentivized both local and foreign fighters to join them… ISIS has the resources, weaponry, and operational safe havens to continue to threaten the stability of the region, as well as;  U.S., Europe, other nations’ national security interests…

Erroneous Calculations in Ms Jayalalithaa's Wealth?

Public prosecutor BV Acharya says Jayalalithaa judgement has glaring errors

Source: http://m.ibnlive.com/news/india/public-prosecutor-bv-acharya-says-jayalalithaa-judgement-has-glaring-errors/989624.html

The judge CR Kumaraswamy says that Jayalalithaa had received loans worth Rs 24 crore. But the actual figures come up to only Rs 10 crore, so there is a mistake of about Rs 14 crore, said Acharya.

According to Acharya Jayalalithaa's total disproportionate assets (DA) is Rs 16.34 crore and not Rs 2.82 crore as the High Court judge said. The assets are 76% disproportionate and not just 8.12% as per HC, Acharya said.

BV Acharya, who actually built a very strong case against Jayalalithaa during his previous tenure as the Special Public Prosecutor said, "In page 852, judge says prosecution has not taken into account the income part of accused by obtaining loans from nationalised banks. Have given particulars of loans from different banks from which loans were rejected. The judge says total loans received are Rs 24 crore. There is some mistake in adding up. Actual figure comes to only Rs 10 crore. Thus there is a mistake to the extent of about Rs 14 crore. The DA will come to Rs 16.34 crore, as against Rs 2 crore. Therefore, there is a glaring arithmetical error in terms calculation."

"Fundamental mistake is in totalling 10 items of the loan. Since this glaring mistake has come to my notice, I am considering all options available. If the Supreme Court appeal is decided, this will be an excellent point to prove that acquittal of Jaya is wrong," he added.

When asked if he is asking for stay on the judgment, Acharya said, "It is a matter of deep consideration. I can't say anything positive now."