India Against Corruption



Dear Dr. Man Mohan Singh

i thought i never informed our (1) Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister (2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi ,Chair Person, National .....

Junior Member
: Apr 2011
: SURAT 395002
: 75
: 21 | 0.01 Per Day
Cool Dear Dr. Man Mohan Singh

i thought i never informed our (1) Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister (2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi ,Chair Person, National Advisory Council and (3) members of National Advisory Council . They never knew that CVC Thomas had a tainted past! They might turn up to say,” Oh !, This is what our dear boy, Mukesh has done to land owners of our India! No body informed us. Otherwise….”

All of them should have the first hand knowledge of the plight of RGTIL Victims in Gujarat, Maharashtra,Andhra Pradesh, Karnatak & Tamil Nadu . i sent a common letter to them addressed to PMO .As it is a known fact that Chair Person, National Advisory Council and (3)members of National Advisory Council are serviced by PMO. So why to waste scarce funds in sending separate letters to them. They function under the same roof. i facilitated easy communication.

Subject:: “For the perusal of the
(a) Prime Minister & Union Cabinet ,
(b) Chair Person, National Advisory Council,
(c) Members of National Advisory Council through Secretary ,
National Advisory Council.

The Prime Minister,
PMO,South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi,
India-110 101.
2Chair Person,
National Advisory Council
National Advisory Council

i sent letters to (1) Minister & Secretary of Mo P & NG and (2) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice on 11-03-2009 .
i submitted a memorandum to Mr.Murli Deora at Surat on 30-09-2009 followed by a letter to him. (India Post RLAD receipt is of 10-10-2009.)
i sent a letter to Dr. Veerappa Moily , Minister of Law & Justice (India Post RLAD receipt is of 14-10-2009.)
I did NOT receive any reply.

“RGTIL, a company owned solely by Mukesh Ambani through a string of his private companies, is masquerading various villages in Indian states in the name of development and holding / ransacking numerous land owners and their properties at sort of a ransom in the name of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act, 1962 (P and MP Act, 1962 and P and MP Rules) and Land Acquisition Act. RGTIL men deploy all techniques and get their work done. Both the acts do not give any remedy to the aggrieved concerned and adjacent property owners. Both acts make the Competent Authority of RGTIL, the government within a government! The C.A. of RGTIL is beyond all laws.

RGTIL’s victims include rich, middle, lower, and below poverty line
farmers. Numerous land owners are marginal and small farmers. No one is happy
with RGTIL’s arbitrary behaviour and Award declared by the Competent Authority of RGTIL.
No one in Govt. of India and respective state govt.s is ready to
listen to aggrieved land owners and owners of neighbourhood properties which are
already damaged by RGTIL.
Every land under User Rights is fragmented into three pieces, thus violating
Prevention of Fragmentation of Lands and Consolidation of Lands Act. Is this
proper? Where is the purpose of Fragmentation Act served? Govt. does not allow
fragmentation of agricultural lands under any pretext, not even by family
partition deeds. Govt. prohibits sale and purchase of fragments of agricultural
lands to farmers other than the owner/s of adjacent land. Here in RGTIL’s case
Govt. of India and various state governments created thousands of fragments of
agricultural lands without naming them fragments. Revenue records do not mention
these fragments anywhere. The mutations in Record of Rights do not reflect the fragmentation and provision for the sale of individual nonviable fragment by the owner of the land. The mutation in Record of Rights is devoid of present and future responsibilities and accountabilities of the party, company, person, association of persons enjoying perennial user rights in land. The Award of RGTIL’s Competent Authority forms the basis of mutation in Record of Rights in favour of RGTIL and the text of the award is perennially binding on land owner / farmer.

In suits related to the Land Acquisition ACT and other related laws the Supreme
Court of India weighed the balance of convenience in favour of over all
development of the village, region, state and country .The SCI, in any case
, did not spell out the scope of such development by RGTIL at individual village
level. The SCI did not prefer to address other issues troubling farmers / land
owners because the Land Acquisition Act and the P and MP Act, 1962 and P and MPRules do not include these issues in their legal framework. Only the CAUSE was considered and the RESULTANT EFFECTS were left for petitioners’ wild
guess. Obviously the SCI and High Courts do not want to go beyond laws and
consider the net results / effects these laws and their interpretation
create. Will the SCI ever take this issue for consideration? If yes, under the
purview of which act / law?

Fundamental Rights are mostly in the sacred book only. They are good for reading and preparing for various examinations..That is the inherent weakness of powers and jurisdiction of our Apex Court and High Courts. The Courts can not assume the role of law makers and law makers enact such laws to benefit a special and a very special privileged class of individuals, here in this case it is RGTIL and individual is MUKESH AMBANI.

The law makers have overt and covert interests to maintain status quo in laws like
the Land Acquisition Act, the P and MP Act, 1962, Company Act, Corporate Act,Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act, Custom Act etc. It is not that no one knows and understands the lacunae in these acts/ laws. They JUST DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND and ACT ACCORDINGLY. There is a definite purpose behind this attitude. Every Indian, literate and illiterate, knows this fact very well. Various constitutional and legal measures are made to abort intentionally. The SCI and High Courts witness this sorry state of affairs and allow people’s faith in rule of law to erode. Often people perceive that the judges are party to this phenomenon .The Supreme Court of India advised / directed 52 petitioners of Gujarat who suffered at the hands of RGTIL to approach respective trial court for the issues related to compensation of lands in question. Are the petitioners expected to face court ordeals for another twenty five years?
(To be contd .)
Reply With Quote

India Against Corruption
India Against Corruption is a PUBLIC Forum, NOT associated with any organisation(s).
DISCLAIMER: Members of public post content on this website. We hold no responsibility for the same. However, abuse may be reported to us.

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0