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/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705/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/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705/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 Context
            if (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('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-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="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</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">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 28652
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</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/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705.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 | SC land notice to Centre | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's..."/>
    <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">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</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>SC land notice to Centre</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 Telegraph<br /><br /><em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br /><br />It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br /><br />The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br /><br />Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br /><br />The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br /><br />The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br /><br />&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br /><br />The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</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('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-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="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</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">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 28652
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</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/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705.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 | SC land notice to Centre | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's..."/>
    <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">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</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>SC land notice to Centre</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 Telegraph<br /><br /><em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br /><br />It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br /><br />The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br /><br />Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br /><br />The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br /><br />The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br /><br />&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br /><br />The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</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]
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('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-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="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</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">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f286444b3e3-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 28652,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC land notice to Centre&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676705,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 28652
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Telegraph&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;New Delhi: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government&#039;s decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act that went against the court&#039;s earlier judgments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government&#039;s response on the earlier ordinance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &amp;quot;defiant&amp;quot; act. &amp;quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&amp;quot; the petition said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon&#039;ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court&#039;s earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</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/sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705.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 | SC land notice to Centre | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's..."/>
    <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">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</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>SC land notice to Centre</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 Telegraph<br /><br /><em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br /><br />It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br /><br />The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br /><br />Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br /><br />The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br /><br />The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br /><br />&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br /><br />The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</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) 28652,
		'title' => 'SC land notice to Centre',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Telegraph<br />
<br />
<em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br />
<br />
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br />
<br />
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br />
<br />
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br />
<br />
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br />
<br />
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br />
<br />
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br />
<br />
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br />
<br />
&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br />
<br />
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705',
		'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) 4676705,
		'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) 28652,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph<br /><br /><em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br /><br />It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br /><br />The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br /><br />Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br /><br />The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br /><br />The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br /><br />&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br /><br />The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 28652,
	'title' => 'SC land notice to Centre',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Telegraph<br />
<br />
<em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br />
<br />
A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br />
<br />
On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br />
<br />
It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br />
<br />
The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br />
<br />
Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br />
<br />
The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br />
<br />
It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br />
<br />
&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br />
<br />
The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 16 July, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150717/jsp/nation/story_32098.jsp#.VaiHJPk1t_k',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sc-land-notice-to-centre-4676705',
	'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) 4676705,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 => 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) 28652
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC land notice to Centre'
$metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition,land acquisition and rehabilitation,Land Acquisition Bill,Land Alienation,land grab,land grabbing,Land Ordinance,Supreme Court'
$metaDesc = '
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph<br /><br /><em>New Delhi: </em>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a &quot;defiant&quot; act that went against the court's earlier judgments.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June.<br /><br />It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014.<br /><br />The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March.<br /><br />Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government.<br /><br />The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance.<br /><br />It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13.<br /><br />The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a &quot;defiant&quot; act. &quot;It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution,&quot; the petition said.<br /><br />&quot;It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein.&quot;<br /><br />The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.</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

SC land notice to Centre

-The Telegraph New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a petition that has challenged the government's decision to re-promulgate the land acquisition ordinance, slamming what it called was a "defiant" act that went against the court's earlier judgments. A bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar gave the government four weeks to reply after former additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the court was already seized of the validity of the earlier ordinance. On May 30, the Union cabinet had decided to re-promulgate the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) ordinance, days before the earlier ordinance lapsed in the first week of June. It was the third such decision since the Narendra Modi government assumed power in May 2014. The ordinancehad been promulgated for the first time in December to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Although the bill to replace the ordinancewas passed in the Lok Sabha, the government could not push it through in the Rajya Sabha for want of numbers. The ordinance was re-promulgated in March. Among other things, the re-promulgated ordinance has exempted the need for social impact assessment, originally envisaged in the 2013 bill, when land is being acquired for five specific purposes. They are: national security projects; rural infrastructure, including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor; industrial corridors, and infrastructure and social infrastructure projects, including those under public-private-partnership where ownership of land continues to vest with the government. The petition, filed by four Delhi-based organisations - the Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kishan Union, Gram Sewa Samiti and the Chogama Vikas Avam -pointed out that the latest ordinance was issued although the court had on April 13 sought the government's response on the earlier ordinance. It said the bill had already been referred to a joint parliamentary committee on May 13. The petitioners said the re-promulgation of the ordinance was a "defiant" act. "It is submitted that the cornerstone of our democratic scheme is law-making by Parliament and the device of promulgating successive ordinances by circumventing Parliament and without enacting the provisions of the ordinance into law subverts the central scheme of the Constitution as well as the basic structure of the Constitution," the petition said. "It is submitted that the promulgation of the impugned ordinance is a defiant act by the central executive when the issue as to the validity of the (earlier) ordinance... relating to the same subject matter is already pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No. 184/2015 filed by the petitioners herein." The petitioners also said the decision was in contravention of the apex court's earlier judgments that ordinances can be promulgated only in extraordinary situations.