Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]Code Contextif (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 15712, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 15712 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice' $metaDesc = ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Hindu Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /><br />“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /><br />“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $maxBufferLength = (int) 8192 $file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php' $line = (int) 853 $message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]Code Context$response->getStatusCode(),
($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')
));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 15712, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 15712 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice' $metaDesc = ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Hindu Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /><br />“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /><br />“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $reasonPhrase = 'OK'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]Code Context$value
), $first);
$first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68045d18c6e2c-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 15712, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> &ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 15712 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice' $metaDesc = ' -The Hindu Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge&rsquo;s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it &ldquo;unconstitutional and void.&rdquo;<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors&rsquo; small car factory at Singur to &ldquo;unwilling farmers&rdquo; &mdash; in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was &ldquo;constitutional and valid.&rdquo;<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act &ldquo;is a law relating to acquisition,&rdquo; a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: &ldquo;&hellip;the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;The Singur Land Rehabilitation &amp; Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,&rdquo; it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for &ldquo;refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,&rdquo; which amounted to &ldquo;no compensation.&rdquo;<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act &ldquo;vague and uncertain&rdquo; and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: &ldquo;The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;&hellip;the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,&rdquo; the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji &ldquo;has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.&rdquo;<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government &ldquo;should not part with the possession of the land&rdquo; during this period and might go in appeal.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Hindu Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /><br />“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /><br />“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $cookies = [] $values = [ (int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' ] $name = 'Content-Type' $first = true $value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /> <br /> “…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /> <br /> “…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 15712, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Hindu Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /><br />“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /><br />“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 15712, 'title' => 'Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Hindu<br /> <br /> <em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /> </em><br /> In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /> <br /> The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /> <br /> The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /> <br /> Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /> <br /> On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /> <br /> “…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /> <br /> In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /> <br /> While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /> <br /> “…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /> <br /> Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /> <br /> However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal. </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 23 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article3561026.ece', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'calcutta-high-court-strikes-down-singur-land-act-ananya-dutta-15839', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 15839, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 15712 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition,Law and Justice' $metaDesc = ' -The Hindu Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu<br /><br /><em>Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government<br /></em><br />In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.”<br /><br />The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise.<br /><br />The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.”<br /><br />Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.<br /><br />The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.<br /><br />On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.”<br /><br />“…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said.<br /><br />In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.”<br /><br />While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”<br /><br />“…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said.<br /><br />Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”<br /><br />However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal.</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
![]() |
Calcutta High Court strikes down Singur Land Act-Ananya Dutta |
-The Hindu
Single judge’s order set aside; setback to Mamata government In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Friday struck down the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, terming it “unconstitutional and void.” The law was enacted by the Trinamool Congress-led government to return a portion of the land acquired for the Tata Motors’ small car factory at Singur to “unwilling farmers” — in fulfilment of a key poll promise. The Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri set aside the order of single judge I. P. Mukerji who had ruled that the Act was “constitutional and valid.” Kalyan Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP and one of the lawyers for the government, said the State would appeal against the order in the Supreme Court. The Bench said the Act “is a law relating to acquisition,” a subject mentioned on the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It held that some sections of the Act were in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the question whether the Act fulfilled a public purpose as required in the case of an acquisition by the state, the Bench said: “…the Act cannot be treated as [one] for public purpose when the intention is to return the land to the unwilling landowners/farmers.” “…The Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 is held to be unconstitutional and void, since it is without having assent from the President of India,” it said. In its 253-page judgment, the Bench said the Act only provided for “refund of the money that was paid by the vendors,” which amounted to “no compensation.” While Mr. Justice Mukerji, in his September 28 order, termed the provisions for compensation in the Act “vague and uncertain” and ruled that the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act be incorporated into it, the Division Bench said: “The said part of the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.” “…the court has no jurisdiction to insert, in the guise of interpretation of statute, or rewrite or recast or reframe the same as held by the Supreme Court,” the Bench said. Justice Mukerji “has no power to insert or recast or rewrite the statute by inserting Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” However, the court granted a two-month stay on the order. The government “should not part with the possession of the land” during this period and might go in appeal. |