PDF, 1.1MB - Combat Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eportsmade to the ex-lessors the erstwhile landlords exertedmuch pressure on various governments to return alltheir land to them. Subsequently the State governmentamended the Principle Act in 2001 which came into effectin 2003 which allowed for the return of land to the exlessorsupto the ceiling limit but no limit on the annualincome of the landlord.Since 1982 the adivasis have been cultivating a smallpart of such surplus agricultural land earlier belongingto joint sugar companies and presently owned by theGovernment, which was not being put to cultivation bythe Corporation as well as by the State Government. On28th November 1991 the Maharashtra StateGovernment passed a G.R No. LEN-1090/PK 172/J-1 forthe regularization of encroachment made by personsbelonging to Schedule Tribes upon Government land.These adivasis fall under this category. However, inspiteof repeated applications being made to all concerned officialstheir application for land titles not processed.Finally in 2001 BHA filed a petition before the BombayHigh Court, Aurangabad Bench for regularization andapplication for land titles. The petition was disposed offwith directions to the government to consider and decidethe applications of adivasis to regularize their possessionas per civil policy by following principles of natural justice.On June 4, 2002 the Collector passed an order rejectingthe claim of the Adivasis without holding enquiry or followingprinciples of natural justice. The action of theCollector, is questionable given the fact that BHA haveprovided him with the orders of the Supreme Court onthe issue of conducting an inquiry even when theclaimants do not have any documentary evidence in supportof their claim. BHA filed a Revision Applicationbefore the Revenue Commissioner, Nasik. The saidapplication is pending. Despite the pendency of the applicationand the ongoing High Court Case some 150 adivasiswere evicted and their huts and other property weredamaged and thousand acres of standing crops destroyedduring the period from July 21-23, 2003 and subsequentlysporadic demolitions in August and September 2003.The panel visited the site and met with some of theevicted adivasi families. At the various sites the panelsaw charred remains of the huts, a complete removal ofthe standing crop and a deep sense of loss among the peoplewho were evicted.In each site, it was clear the adivasis have been in possessionof the land for a long period of time because thearea is heavily forested with thick growth of vedi babul– a strong drought resistant tree. Prior to being able tocultivate the adivasis have uprooted the vedi babul andclear the land of the deep roots of the vedi babul, a taskthat cannot be completed in a couple of year, as shoots ofthe tree sprout up from roots left in the earth.The Tribunal met with some of the families who hadbeen evicted. Some of them were able to show proof inform of ration cards that they had been residing there forover 13 -14 years. Others had lost most of their documentsin the demolition. Over and over again theTribunal was told the same story – that no notice wasgiven to the people, the crops were destroyed and peopleevicted inspite of having lived and tilled the land for severalyears. Moreover the demolition was done during theheight of the monsoon.Official ResponseExcept for the Collector who was in Ahmednagar thePanel met with the Police Inspectors, the Tehsildar andall the other concerned officials including Mr. Warkar,Estate Manager of MSFC. In the meeting that followedthe Thesildar stated that the rights of the Adivasis hadalready been decided upon and they were given orders toevict. He and Mr. Warkar Estate Manager of MSFLshowed the Panel the copy of the Judgement of the HighCourt which directed the State Government to take adecision on the claim of the adivasis. However, the orderwhich was shown to the Panel clearly shows as a matterof fact their rights were not decided.Public HearingAbout 100 people gathered to meet with the Panel onSeptember 12, 2003 in Puntamba. This community ofpeople landless casual labourers who used to previouslymigrate for sugarcane cutting as well as to the brickkilns in the off seasons. The average size of the familygroup is six including parents. The educational level isnext to nothing. Due to the seasonal nature of theiremployment most of them are heavily in debt. It was outof sheer necessity that they began to clear the governmentwasteland it took almost years two years the clearan acre of land at the cost of Rs. 3,000/- per acre. Most ofthe families have occupied about three to four acres ofland. Each year they spend around Rs. 2,000/- per acrefor cultivating the land. If the weather is clement theycan manage to produce their food requirements for thefollowing year and need not migrate in search of work orfood. Each family also keeps a small amount of livestockin the form of cows, goats and chickens. This has beenthe practice for atleast two decades.The tribals who deposed before the panel also mentionedthat in a certain hamlet where a group of tribalshad voted for a local politician, those tribals were notevicted inspite of that fact that they were also living onthe MSFC land.Findings and RecomendationsAfter going through the background of the events, thesite visits and meetings with the various officials theTribunal is of opinion:49 combat law • April - May 2004
eportsperformance and panel discussion. There was hardlyroom to sit, stand or even lie as the small auditorium wasfilled up with eager minds and beating hearts!The festival was formally opened with a spoken wordperformance and a video collectively made by LesbiansAnd Bisexuals In Action (LABIA, formerly StreeSangam), OLAVA and HUMJINSI. It was screenedmuch to the pleasure of hooting queer junta; even thestraight folks couldn't suppress the urge to clap. For oncea predominantly queer space had been created wheremany for the first time were compelled to think of theprivileges that are a given & taken for granted within thenorm of sexual and gender expression.39 Films of different genre including feature length fiction,shorts, experimental, documentary, animation &mixed media presentations of varying durations fromacross the world were thematically organised into 25packages and screened over 3 days of the festival. Thefestival also included 2 powerful and moving spokenword performances by Nighah Media Collective and 2provocative panel discussions on sexuality, gender andissues of representation.Most packages were followed by Q&A with either filmmakersin attendance or other people who could addressthe issues raised by the films. The questions revealed agenuine curiosity on part of the audience to know moreand we could clearly see that these encounters are rare.The quality of these discussions were very high and occasionallywe had to deal with naïve questions & statementsabout people dying after 15 years because they arehomosexuals or that a bisexual woman is one who hashair around her nipples! Though many of these questionswere exasperating, there was also the realisation thatthis film festival was for many, their first brush with sexualityand gender variance.Following its debut in Mumbai the festival traveled toother cities as well. OLAVA an autonomous lesbian andbisexual women's group from Pune and PRISM anautonomous group working for sexual rights in Delhihosted the festival in their cities. Many of the films fromthe festival were also screened at the World Social Forumorganised in Mumbai in January 2004.In a sense LARZISH was able to publicly launch analternative viewpoint. The festival as well as the publicitycampaign that revolved around it was effectively ableto generate positive visibility for the queer communitiesand to connect with the demands of the LGBT movementfor the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.The ideas released are resistant to the imposition ofsilence and although the queer community continues toexist under threat, its presence has made a visible andtangible impact.CLPOTA - A Movement forits RepealTen-year old Om Prakash from UP, a POTA accused.On 13 and 14 March 2004, a People'sTribunal was held in New Delhi to focuson the gross misuse of POTA and othersecurity legislations in the country. Morethan 55 innocent victims deposed before apanel of eminent jurists, academicians, journalists andactivists. The panel comprised Ram Jethmalani (former law minister) Arundhati Roy (writer) Mohini Giri (former head of the Women'sCommission) Sayeda Hamid (Former member, NationalCommission for Women) Prafull Bidwai (journalist) Justice D.K. Basu (Former Justice of the CalcuttaHigh Court) Justice Suresh (Retired judge, Mumbai High Court)and K. G. Kannabiran, President, People's Union for CivilLiberties.The tribunal was jointly organized by human rightsactivists, lawyers and rights-based groups from acrossthe country. The organizing committee included distinguishedhuman rights activists and lawyers such as Henri Tiphange of People's Watch, Tamil Nadu Mihir Desai of the Mumbai-based India Centre forHuman Rights and Law Teesta Setalvad of Communalism Combat Prakash Louis of the Indian Social Institute and Colin Gonsalves of the Human Rights Law Network.Teams from 10 states --- Jammu and Kashmir, UttarPradesh, Jharkhand, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat,Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Punjab ---51 combat law • April - May 2004
Page 4 and 5: BY ENAKSHI GANGULY THUKRALEvery tim
Page 6 and 7: child rightskeep to the ‘right’
Page 8 and 9: “ The day will come whennations w
Page 10 and 11: child rightsIndian NGOs could get t
Page 12 and 13: child rightsSabha of the area had t
Page 14 and 15: child rightsnot even let her look a
Page 17 and 18: child rightsagenda, the States comm
Page 19 and 20: child rights Access to safe drinkin
Page 21 and 22: child rightsaccounting for about 13
Page 23 and 24: child rightstain issues such as chi
Page 25 and 26: BY RITA VOHRAWhy and how toensure c
Page 27 and 28: child rightssociety groups’ respo
Page 29 and 30: child rightsS.No1234567891011121314
Page 31 and 32: child rightsCRIME AGAINST CHILDREN,
Page 33 and 34: child rightsChild Sexual Abuse - Ti
Page 35 and 36: child rightssodomised or if it is a
Page 37 and 38: child rightsSchool Transfer Certifi
Page 39 and 40: child rightsChild Labour and Cultur
Page 41 and 42: child rightsscene of child labour i
Page 43 and 44: BY ALOK GUPTACorporal punishment is
Page 45: child rightsfrom Article 21 as they
Page 49 and 50: womenBranding WomenA fact finding r
Page 51 and 52: womenChandu BaiDhulia a respected v
Page 53 and 54: womenAmbi and VajliThis is an incid
Page 55 and 56: BY HOSHEDAR HAVEWALAcommunalismPass
Page 57 and 58: judiciary & polityCyber Crime andIn
Page 59 and 60: judiciary & polityreconnoitered, cl
Page 61 and 62: judiciary & polityas response to th
Page 63 and 64: judiciary & politywhile dismissing
Page 65 and 66: judiciary & politythe government ha
Page 67 and 68: judiciary & polityby holding that t
Page 69 and 70: judiciary & politypoor, this techni
Page 71 and 72: judiciary & polityblood, buccal or
Page 73 and 74: judiciary & polityensure that such
Page 75 and 76: labour rightsThe Tribunal visited 6
Page 77 and 78: adivasi rightsAdivasi Tradition as
Page 79 and 80: prisoners’ rightsAccessing Justic
Page 81: prisoners’ rightsfour other subor

PDF, 1.1MB - Combat Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?