The general assumption is that ownership of a superstructure/building is merged with ownership of land, unless there is an opposite intent and transaction, in which scenario the ownership of the superstructure belongs to a unit other than that of the underlying land. Indian laws allow separate ownership of land and buildings. 12.9 Under what circumstances (if any) is environmental remediation mandatory? ■ Rights of easement: An easement is a right that the owner or occupant of a particular piece of land as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that property, must do something and continue to do or prevent and prevent anything from being done, in or on or in connection with certain other properties that are not his property; e.g. the right of way, the right to light, etc. The consequences of land acquisition in India are manifold. Empirical and theoretical studies on displacement through government acquisition for development projects have so far focused on the direct and immediate negative consequences of land acquisition. [26] Most summary and descriptive accounts of the immediate consequences of land acquisition for development projects rely heavily on Michael Cernea`s “impoverishment risk model,” which lists about eight “risks” or “dimensions” of developmental displacement. These eight risks are very direct and fundamental: (i) lack of land, (ii) unemployment, (iii) marginalization, (iv) loss of access to common property resources, (v) increased morbidity and mortality, (vi) food insecurity, (vii) homelessness, and (viii) social disarticulation ([27]). Recently, L.K. Mahapatra added “loss of education” as another risk of impoverishment in situations of displacement (Mahapatra 1999).
The development of these lands, which are located nearby (and not part of the old monument), should comply with the regulations. The Constitution of India originally provided for the right to property (including land) under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guarantees all citizens the right to acquire, own and dispose of property. Article 31 states that “no one shall be deprived of his property except as permitted by law”. It was also pointed out that compensation is paid to a person whose property has been stolen for public purposes (often subject to a wide range of meanings). The Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights with a new provision, Section 300-A, which stated that “no person shall be deprived of his property except the authority of law” (Constitution 44th Amendment, w.e.f. 10.6.1979). The amendment has ensured that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, but a constitutional/statutory right/right, and that in case of violation, an aggrieved person has the right of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through the High Court and not the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The State must pay compensation for such acquired land, buildings or structures (inserted by the Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, the same is found in earlier decisions where the right to property was a fundamental right (such as 1954 AIR 170, 1954 SCR 558, which proposed that the word “compensation” used in Article 31(2) implies full compensation, This is the market value of the property at the time of acquisition.
The legislator must “ensure that what is determined as payable is compensation, that is, a fair equivalent of what has been withheld from the owner”). In addition, Justice, Reddy, O Chinnappa (State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July 1983) ruled that the fundamental right to property, because of its incompatibility with the objectives of “justice”, social, economic and political and “equality of status and opportunity” and with the establishment of a “democratic socialist republic as provided for in the Constitution, has been abolished. There is no reason for a new concept of property to replace the old one in order to realize the remnants of the laissez-faire doctrine and create a new oligarchy in the name of efficiency. [15] Efficiency has many facets, and a foolproof test of efficiency has not yet been found to meet the very different needs of a developing society such as ours” (1983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327). The concept of efficiency was introduced by Reddy J., O Chinnappa, in conjunction with the condition of infallibility. [16] Although land rights are fundamental to achieving a higher standard of living, certain groups of individuals are systematically excluded from land regulation. The law can provide access to land, but cultural barriers and poverty traps limit the ability of minorities to own land.
[7] In order to achieve equality, these groups must be granted adequate land rights that are both socially and legally recognized. Land rights are such a fundamental form of law that they develop even where no State can enforce them; For example, the advocacy clubs of the American West were institutions that emerged organically to enforce the mining rules system. Squatting, the occupation of land without property, is a ubiquitous phenomenon worldwide. Land law is the legal form that deals with the right to use, sell or exclude others from land. In many jurisdictions, these types of property are referred to as real estate or real estate, as opposed to personal property. Land use contracts, including leasing, are an important intersection between property law and contract law. The charge on someone else`s land rights, such as an easement, may represent someone else`s land rights. Mineral rights and water rights are closely related and often interdependent concepts. The British passed India`s first land law in 1824.