The country’s top court has given a big decision regarding the acquisition of farmers’ land. The Supreme Court said in a decision that the compensation and interest to the farmers whose land was acquired under the National Highway Authority (NHAI) Act will be applicable from the retrospective date. A decision related to this was given by the Supreme Court in 2019 and said that its 2019 decision allowing compensation would be implemented with retrospective effect.

A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan gave this decision while dismissing a petition of the National Highways Authority of India. In its petition, the NHAI had demanded the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision of September 19, 2019 in future. The authority had also demanded a ban on reopening those cases where the land acquisition proceedings had been completed and the compensation had been finalized.

What did the Supreme Court say?

In its decision, the bench said, ‘We do not find any merit in the arguments put forward by the applicant. We reaffirm the principles established in the 2019 Tarsem Singh case regarding the beneficial nature of ‘compensation’ and ‘interest’ and emphasize the need to avoid unjust classification lacking judicious distinction. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present application.’

The decision will not be applicable prospectively.

The court said that in the application, clarification has been sought that the decision in the Tarsem Singh case should be considered applicable only prospectively, but in our opinion, by giving such clarification, the relief given by the Tarsem Singh decision will be effectively ended. On applying this decision prospectively, the situation will become the same as it was before the decision.

Then the farmer will be deprived of compensation.

Giving an example, the bench said that if the 2019 decision is presented prospectively, then a landowner whose land was acquired on December 31, 2014, will be deprived of the benefits of compensation and interest. If a farmer’s land was acquired a day later on January 1, 2015, then he will be entitled to get statutory benefits. The bench clarified in its decision that the final outcome of its 2019 decision was limited only to giving compensation and interest to those aggrieved landowners whose land was acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015. It did not in any way direct to reopen the cases that had already been finalized.

Related Articles:-

• Bullet Train: Railways will run bullet train between these two cities! check route & more details
• How to Link Your Mobile Number to Your Post office Bank Account, step by step guide
• SGB Scheme Closed: Govt closed ‘Sovereign Gold Bond’ scheme, now which is the best scheme for investing in gold?
• ATM Withdrawal Charges: ATM cash withdrawals to become costly? RBI plans to raise interchange fee
• RBI publishes latest status of withdrawal of ₹2000 Denomination Banknotes

The post Land acquisition Rule: Supreme Court’s big decision on compensation and interest on land acquisition – Key Details Inside first appeared on Rightsofemployees.com.

According to the court, mere sale agreement or power of attorney cannot be considered sufficient for title transfer. The Supreme Court has said that under the Registration Act 1908, property can be owned only if there are registered documents.

In the case in which the court has given its verdict, the petitioner says that he is the owner of the property and the property was given to him as a gift deed by his brother. He says that this property is his and the possession is also his. Whereas the other party has claimed the property and said that it has power of attorney, affidavit and agreement to sale in its favor.

In the reply of the other party, the petitioner said that the documents on the basis of which the defendant has made the claim are not valid. He has said that ownership of immovable property cannot be done without registered documents. The Supreme Court agreed with this and said that the ownership of immovable property cannot be transferred without a registered document, hence the claim of the defendant is rejected. The court also accepted the petitioner’s appeal.

What is Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell?

Power of Attorney is a legal authority which is given by the owner of a property to another person. By getting power of attorney, that person can take decisions related to the purchase or sale of that property. But this is not ownership of the property at all. Agreement to Sale is a document in which all the details related to the property are decided between the buyer and the seller. In this, all the information about the price of the property and full payment is recorded.

The post Power of attorney cannot give ownership rights to anyone – supreme court decision first appeared on Rightsofemployees.com.

Good news has come for flat buyers after a long time. The way has been cleared for thousands of buyers to get their homes. The petition of real estate developer company Supertech has been accepted by the Supreme Court, in which it has asked to invest and give possession of 20,000 flats in the coming two years. The Supreme Court has directed Superte to complete 18 pending projects by taking loans from private finance companies.

Resolution plan accepted

The Supreme Court has accepted the resolution plan presented by Supertech Limited to NCLAT. Also refused to interfere in the order of NCLAT from June 2022. The Supreme Court order has allowed the promoters of the company to raise funds on a priority basis and complete the housing project.

Work on 18 projects being completed

Under the supervision of IRP, Supertech is working on completion of 18 projects. But due to lack of money, the company was having difficulty in completing the work. Now on getting the permission of the loan, there is a possibility of catching the pace of work. The Supreme Court gave this order on an appeal filed by Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Union Bank of India. A division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed this order.

This company will give a loan of 1500 crores.

A loan of 1200 to 1500 crores will be given to Supertech by the Octry Company. Recently, on behalf of Supertech, its plan was submitted in the apex court. In this, Supertech had told how to repay the loan. Only after this plan is passed, the court has allowed Supertech to take a loan from a private financier.

Recently, Supertech’s chairman RK Arora was detained for not returning the money of flat buyers. The district administration had taken action on the RC issued by UP RERA. After this, Supertech has given a check of Rs 2 crore and has promised to deposit Rs 7 crore in 10 days.

The post Good news! Supreme Court has accepted the resolution plan, flats to be delivered in 2 years first appeared on Rightsofemployees.com.

Supreme Court decision on Pension: Supreme Court has given a big decision regarding pension. It has said that the provisions contained in the Employees’ Pension Amendment (Scheme), 2014 are lawful and valid. The country’s highest court has canceled the salary limit of Rs 15,000 per month to join the pension fund.

The Supreme Court has said that after the amendment in the scheme, the maximum pensionable salary will have to be kept at 15,000 every month. It has increased the earlier limit of Rs 6,500 per month. A bench of the Supreme Court gave this decision. Apart from Chief Justice U U Lalit, two more judges were included in this bench.

The bench said that in the amended scheme, the requirement of treating the contribution at the rate of 1.6 per cent on monthly salary amount exceeding Rs 15,000 for the members as additional contribution is beyond the purview of the provisions of the 1952 Act.

The Supreme Court has given four months to EPFO ​​members availing EPS to opt for contribution of 8.33 per cent of their actual salary instead of their pensionable salary. The Supreme Court has amended the orders of the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts.

The Supreme Court has given this decision on the petition of several petitioners including the EPFO ​​and the Central Government. It has said that the fund authorities will have to plan the directions included in the decision within eight weeks. The bench has also said that the employees who have not exercised the option to join the pension scheme will have to exercise the option within six months.

The country’s biggest court has also said that eligible employees who could not join the scheme till the last date should be given additional opportunity for this. This is because the situation has remained unclear after the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts’ decisions on this issue.

The Supreme Court struck down a condition of the 2014 scheme that mandated employees to make an additional 1.6 per cent contribution on salaries above Rs 15,000. The EPFO ​​and the central government challenged the decision of the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts in the Supreme Court.

According to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the maximum salary for calculation of pension was Rs.6,500 per month. From employers’ contribution (12 per cent), 8.33 per cent goes into the Employees’ Pension Fund (EPS). A provision was added to the EPS on March 16, 1996. In this, employees and employers were given the option to contribute more to the pension fund.

The Employees’ Pension Scheme was revised in September 2014. Under this, the maximum pensionable salary was capped at Rs 15,000 per month. Members up to September 1, 2014 were given an option to contribute on salary exceeding Rs 15,000 per month. Under this, the employee had to give a joint application with the employer.

The post Supreme Court decision on Pension: No additional 1.6 percent contribution will have to be made on salary more than Rs 15,000 for higher pension. first appeared on Rightsofemployees.com.