helpadvocacy

  1. Poonam Chand  (Plaintiff/ Appellant) Vs  State of M.P. (Defendant/ Responded) Sub: This case relates to Section 59 (2) of the MP Land Revenue Code, which has retrospective effect or not, has been decided herein. Facts of the case :- 1. The Plaintiff owned an agricultural land measuring 26 acre in the Khasra No. 649/3 at Tahsil Sausar in District Chhindwada of MP. 2. A house was built at this land by diverting a portion of that agricultural land into non agricultural land in the year 1928. 3. The MP Land Revenue Code came into effect from 2 Octo- ber, 1959 and this was clear that the diversion of the said land had already taken place before the MP Land Revenue Code having been operational. 4. Section 59A of the Code has a clear provision that when- ever an assessment is done under this Section, it will be done after this Code being effective. 5. The SDM, in whose jurisdiction the land was situated, had passed an order on 10-3-1964 for a rent of Rs. 63.64 instead of Rs. 48.80 by dee

1.  M.C. Mehta (Petitioner) Vs  Union of India (Resondent) Ref : AIR 1996 SC 750 Sub :- This case is based on the pollution of the environment which is caused due to hazardous industries. Facts of the Case :- 1. M.C. Mehta is an environmentalist who has filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court on the ground that environ- mental pollution is increasing rapidly in Delhi due to industries. 2. A master plan was implemented in Delhi in 1962 under the Delhi development Act, 1957 which was aimed at re. reducing the pollution level in Delhi. 3. In Delhi there are so many such industries which comes under the category of the Hazardous industries and which are polluting environment there. 4. The upshift discharged from these industries is also caus- ing soil pollution in one way or other. 5. The upshift material discharged from such industries is ei- ther thrown over the land or buried under the land which causes much pollution. 6. In a developed City like Delhi, it is not pro