contd.. from page1
24(2), because the actual intent was much more broader and deeper. (1 & 2 were intended final filters and not the primary touchstone for testing)
- Hon. Justice Mishra:…..”For giving such benefit, we have to deem a classQ2…………….. Do we quash an act from even 100 years back? Where to draw the line? If we give plain interpretation, more than 5 years could mean more than 100 years also? Purposive interpretation has to be given, otherwise not just 1894 but even 1870 would be invalidated”
- Hon. Justice Mishra: “Law has to be applied uniformly. Only a few persons cannot be allowed to be kicked out and vacated. If the acquisition has to go, then everyone must get the fruits? Let’s be socialist. How should we distinguishQ3?”
- Hon.Justice Mishra: “So where do we stop? On which dateQ1?”
Having conducted a vast research spanning 9 years screening through the comparative laws of over 50 different countries of the world, in to the depths of that very same logic, with the objective of obtaining justice for thousands of innocent victims of arbitrary Land Acquisition, and on noticing the aforesaid questions and also observing the fact that none of those important questions have been answered by anyone, I deem it is my duty to intervene and submit my exact answers for those crucial questions.
The critically valid and crucial questions of the Hon’ble Court are:
- “So where do we stop? On which date?”
- “we have to deem a class”( which class to deem?)
- “How should we distinguish?”
In my view, these three questions raised by Hon.Justice.Arun Mishra could be of great importance in the history of not only Land Acquisition in particular but also Jurisprudence in general, because they hold the logical keys to Justice and the clues to the direction of solution for the chakravyuh/labyrinth/maze involved in the century old puzzle behind the LA Act, 1894.
The very few other jurists (who went close to solving the Chakravyuh puzzle) whom I have identified in my research, are former CJI Hon’ble Justice P.Sathasivam(Chennai Petro case), the former Madras State IGR of 1949 who framed the first Registration Rules under 69(gg) of the Regn Act, 1908, those unknown personalities behind the drafting of the Act 39 of 1948 and the team of experts behind the LARR 2013( although the intent of the legislation was not expressed in a crystal clear manner and in spite of not fully addressing the issues I showcased in this regard during 2010-13). The chakravyuh or legal labyrinth remains unsolved till today.
contd....
