Mumtaz Ali death case: Three more accused taken into police custody
Kavoor: In connection with the businessman Mumtaz Ali death case, three more accused were produced before the court on Thursday by the police.
The Kavoor police presented the alleged mastermind and A2 accused, Abdul Sattar, a resident of Krishnapura, along with A3 accused Muhammad Mustafa, and the 4th accused, Shafi, a resident of Nandavar in Bantwal Taluk, before the court. The police have been granted seven days of custody for further investigation.
These three accused were initially detained by the CCB police on October 9 and later handed over to the Kavoor police.
In the same case, on October 8, the police had arrested A1 accused Rehmat and the 5th accused, her husband Shuhaib, and presented them before the court. The Kavoor police had taken them into custody for further interrogation.
On October 6, Mumtaz Ali's brother Haider Ali lodged a complaint, alleging that Rehmat, along with five others, had blackmailed his brother for money, leading to his suicide by jumping into the river. Based on this complaint, the police registered a case under BNS sections 308(2), 308(5), 352, 351(2) and 190, and launched an investigation.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Kerala HC sets aside Sabarimala airport land acquisition process
Kochi (PTI): The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, holding that the state failed to properly assess the minimum land actually required for the project.
On December 30, 2022, the state government issued an order granting sanction for the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land, comprising the Cheruvally Estate and an additional 307 acres located outside it.
Justice C Jayachandran, delivering the judgment on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose, ruled the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was legally flawed.
The court, in its December 19 order, directed the state to restart the process by conducting a fresh social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land requirement, followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and reconsideration by the government.
The petitioners had challenged several government actions, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the expert committee appraisal, the state government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.
The land in question, mainly the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, is proposed to be acquired for building a new airport intended to serve Sabarimala pilgrims.
The court found that while the state is entitled to acquire land for public purposes, the law clearly mandates that only the "absolute bare minimum" extent of land required for a project can be acquired.
According to the court, this mandatory requirement under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act was not properly complied with.
Justice Jayachandran observed that the authorities had shown "manifest non-application of mind" in assessing how much land was genuinely necessary.
As a result, the SIA report, the Expert Committee report and the government order were declared invalid to the extent they failed to address this crucial requirement.
Since the Section 11 notification could only be issued after a valid completion of these steps, it too was quashed.
On the petitioners' allegation of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court did not give a final finding. It held that this issue is closely linked to determining the minimum land required and can only be examined after that exercise is properly completed.
Before concluding, the court suggested that for technically complex projects like airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and lawful decision-making.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, keeping other issues raised by the petitioners open for future consideration.
