Occupy Wall Street Photos

Members of trade unions join Occupy Wall Street protesters as they rally in Foley Square, New York, Oct. 5, 2011.

The atmosphere at this Occupy Wall Street protest in Denver was "electric with frustration," says iReporter Dylan Maxberry.

Police ticketed more than 700 "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators crossing the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday in New York.

In a study published Wednesday by the Pew Research Center, only one-third of post-9/11 veterans say the wars have been worth the costs.

Protesters march in Lower Manhattan this week. The Occupy Wall Street movement has inspired comparisons with the tea

An Occupy Wall Street protester in New York.

Rapes continue without preventative action

Rapes continue without preventative action

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Sat, 10/15/2011 7:34 AM

Another rape involving an illegal public minivan (angkot) driver has been reported directly on the heels of the Jakarta administration’s attempts to crackdown on minivans with tinted windows in an effort to prevent other instances of sexual assault.

While working as a babysitter, a 38-year-old woman from Rawagabus, Karawang, West Java, said that she was raped by a man who had apparently been driving a public minivan on Oct. 8.

East Jakarta Police spokesperson Comr. Didik Hariyadi said that the victim, identified as Ha, was waiting for an angkot in front of Pondok Gede market at around 10 p.m. to stop by her employer’s house after visiting a relative.

Ha spotted an M28 plying the Pondok Gede–Kampung Melayu route driven by Edi Sitorus.

After arriving at the Kampung Melayu bus station, Edi promised to take Ha home after returning the minivan to its authorized driver near Pondok Gede market.

Later, instead of taking Ha home, he took her to Garuda park in Pinang Ranti, Makassar, East Jakarta, across from Tamini Square.

According to Ha, Edi raped her and took her cellphone and Rp 50,000 (US$5.65).

Makassar Police crime unit chief Comm. Adj. Ujang Rohanda said that Edi was arrested by the police on Thursday after Ha, who had his telephone number, called him and promised to give him Rp 300,000.

Edi denied the rape allegations in a written statement submitted to the police. He said that the sexual conduct was consensual.

“I did not force her,” he wrote as reported by kompas.com.

He denied the allegations, saying “We had dinner afterwards. I promised her I would marry her,” he said.

Ha also contested Edi’s statements, explaining that she was traumatized.

Last month, a university student was gang-raped and killed in an M24 minivan serving the Slipi-Srengseng route.

The incident was soon followed by the gang-rape of another female passenger in a minivan on Jl. TB Simatupang in South Jakarta.

The two cases prompted the Jakarta administration to crack down on public minivans with tinted windows. The move was criticized as reactive and did not address the root of the problem, namely mismanagement within the public transportation system.

Earlier this month, another student, N.P. jumped out of a speeding minivan when the driver refused to allow her to disembark. She suffered a concussion as well as cuts and bruises.

Vitria Lazzarini of the Pulih Foundation Trauma and Rehabilitation Center voiced concern, saying that measures to crack down on certain public minivans could not necessarily guarantee prevention of other accidents.

“The raids were conducted only temporarily. They are not doing this every day. What they should do is reach the source of the ‘fire’, including inconsistent law enforcement measures.

“There should be zero tolerance for violence against women,” Vitria told The Jakarta Post. (swd)
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/15/rapes-continue-without-preventative-action.html

Violent clash over land erupts in West Jakarta

Violent clash over land erupts in West Jakarta

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 10/14/2011 5:35 PM

Amok: An unidentified man holding a baton stands in front of a public bus that was left to burn after it was torched by an angry mob in Kebon Jeruk, West Jakarta, on Friday. The mob had previously been embroiled in a gang fight. The incident is suspected to be related to a land ownership dispute. (Antara/Marifka Wahyu Hidayat)A violent clash between two angry mobs erupted on Jl. Arjuna Raya, Kebon Jeruk, in West Jakarta, leaving one public minibus and three motorcycles destroyed and burned.

According to an eye witness, Sugandi, 40, a group of people arrived at a housing complex on Jl. Arjuna Raya. “They rode in two minibuses, four motorcycles and a car,” Sugandi said on Friday as quoted by Tempointeraktif.com.

When local residents asked why they had come to the neighborhood, the group said that it wanted to cast out some residents who had inhabited a plot of land in the Duri Kepa subdistrict.

The residents then clashed with the group, driving them out of the neighborhood.

“Since they were outnumbered, some of the people ran away,” said Sugandi.

The police deployed three fire engines to extinguish fires on the minibus and motorcycles. The police are still guarding the area.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/14/violent-clash-over-land-erupts-west-jakarta.html

FBI Account of "Terror Plot" Suggests Sting Operation

FBI Account of "Terror Plot" Suggests Sting Operation
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Oct 13, 2011 (IPS) - While the administration of Barack Obama vows to hold the Iranian government "accountable" for the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the legal document describing evidence in the case provides multiple indications that it was mainly the result of an FBI "sting" operation.

Although the legal document, called an amended criminal complaint, implicates Iranian-American Manssor Arbabsiar and his cousin Ali Gholam Shakuri, an officer in the Iranian Quds Force, in a plan to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, it also suggests that the idea originated with and was strongly pushed by a undercover DEA informant, at the direction of the FBI.

On May 24, when Arbabsiar first met with the DEA informant he thought was part of a Mexican drug cartel, it was not to hire a hit squad to kill the ambassador. Rather, there is reason to believe that the main purpose was to arrange a deal to sell large amounts of opium from Afghanistan.

In the complaint, the closest to a semblance of evidence that Arbabsiar sought help during that first meeting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador is the allegation, attributed to the DEA informant, that Arbabsiar said he was "interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia".

Among the "other things" was almost certainly a deal on heroin controlled by officers in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Three Bloomberg reporters, citing a "federal law enforcement official", wrote that Arbabsiar told the DEA informant he represented Iranians who "controlled drug smuggling and could provide tons of opium".

Because of opium entering Iran from Afghanistan, Iranian authorities hold 85 percent of the world's opium seizures, according to Iran's Fars News Agency. Iranian security personnel, including those in the IRGC and its Quds Force, then have the opportunity to sell the opium to traffickers in the Middle East, Europe and now Mexico.

Mexican drug cartels have begun connecting with Middle Eastern drug traffickers, in many cases stationing operatives in Middle East locations to facilitate heroin production and sales, according to a report last January in Borderland Beat.

But the FBI account of the contacts between Arbabsiar and the DEA informant does not reference any discussions of drugs.

The criminal complaint refers to an unspecified number of meetings between Arbabsiar and the DEA informant in late June and the first two weeks of July.

What transpired in those meetings remains the central mystery surrounding the case.

The official account of the investigation cites the testimony of the informant (referred to in the document as "CS-1") in stating, "Over the course of a series of meetings, ARBABSIAR explained to CS-1 that his associates in Iran had discussed a number of violent missions for CS-1 and CIS-1's purported criminal associates to perform."

The account claims that the mission discussed included murdering the ambassador. But no specific statement proposing or agreeing to the act is attributed to Arbabsiar. "Prior to the July 14 meeting, CS- 1 had reported that he and Arbabsiar had discussed the possibility of attacks on a number of other targets," the account states.

The targets are described as involving "foreign government facilities associated with Saudi Arabia and with another country…located either in or outside the United States", without mentioning any discussion of the Saudi ambassador.

Both that language and the absence of any statement attributed to Arbabsiar imply that the Iranian- American said nothing about assassinating the Saudi ambassador except in response to suggestions by the informant, who was already part of an FBI undercover operation.

The DEA informant, as the FBI account acknowledges in a footnote, had previously been charged with a narcotics offence by a state in the U.S. and had been cooperating in narcotics investigations – apparently posing as a drug cartel operative – in return for dropping the charges. The document is notably silent on whether the conversation was recorded.

A former FBI official familiar with procedures in such cases, who spoke to IPS anonymously, said the FBI would normally have recorded all such conversations touching on the possibility of terrorism.

The absence of quotes from any of those meetings suggests that they do not support the case being made by the FBI and the Obama administration.

The account is quite explicit, on the other hand, that the Jul. 14 and Jul. 17 meetings were recorded at FBI direction. Statements quoted from those transcripts show the DEA informant trying to induce Arbabsiar to indicate agreement to assassinating the Saudi ambassador.

The informant is quoted as saying he would need "at least four guys" and would "take the one point five for the Saudi Arabia". He declared that he "go ahead and work on the Saudi Arabia, get all the information we can".

At one point the informant says, "You just want the, the main guy." And at the end of the meeting, he declares, "[W]e're gonna start doing the guy".

The fact that not a single quote from Arbabsiar shows that he agreed to assassinating the ambassador, much less proposed it, suggests that he was either non-committal or linking the issue to something else, such as the prospect of a major drug deal with the cartel.

Arbabsiar's quotes from a Sep. 2 phone conversation referring to the cartel as "having the number for the safe" and "once you open the door that's it" could refer to a drug transaction that had been discussed, while the FBI account suggest those quotes refer to the assassination and "other projects" with the Iranian group.

At the Jul. 17 meeting, the DEA informant presented a plan to blow up a restaurant to kill the ambassador, with the possible deaths of 100-150 people, eliciting a lack of concern on the part of Arbabsiar about such deaths.

During a visit to Iran in August, Arbabsiar wired two equal payments totalling $100,000 to a bank account in New York. But he was still under the impression that he was about to cash in on a deal with the cartel.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Arbabsiar had told an Iranian-American friend from Corpus Christie, Texas, "I'm going to make good money."

There is also circumstantial evidence that Arbabsiar may have even been brought into the sting operation to help further implicate his cousin Gholam Shakuri in the terrorist plot.

Arbabsiar met with his cousin Shakuri in late September and told him that the cartel was demanding that he, Arbabsiar, go to Mexico personally to guarantee payment. That demand from the DEA was an obvious device by the FBI to get Shakuri and his associates in Tehran to demonstrate their commitment to the assassination.

The FBI account indicates that Shakuri told Arbabsiar that he was responsible for himself if he went to Mexico. That statement would have been a warning sign for Arbabsiar, if he still believed he was dealing with one of the most murderous drug cartels in Mexico, that he would be risking his own life for a group that was no longer taking responsibility for him.

Yet Arbabsiar flew to Mexico as if unconcerned about that risk.

After his arrest on Sep. 29 Arbabsiar waived the right to a lawyer and proceeded to provide a complete confession. A few days later, he placed a phone call to Shakuri which was recorded "at the direction of federal enforcement agents", according to the FBI.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105458

Protesters Plan to Occupy Singapore

October 14, 2011, 4:13 PM SGT
Protesters Plan to Occupy Singapore
By Shibani Mahtani

AFP/Getty Images 
Occupy Wall Street members staged a protest march near Wall Street in New York earlier this week.When Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party received a historic low of 60% of the vote –- what would be considered a landslide for any U.S. president –- in elections earlier this year, political analysts said it marked the beginning of a more-competitive political system in the city-state. And when opposition rallies were attended by tens of thousands of people, many residents were shocked.

Now, in the latest sign of increased political activity in the once-sleepy island, the Occupy Wall Street protest has inspired Internet-savvy citizens to organize their own protest in Singapore, more than 9,500 miles away from Wall Street.

A Facebook page for the protest, named Occupy Raffles Place after the city’s financial district, first appeared on Oct. 10, calling for Singaporeans to occupy Singapore’s central business district to “demand accountability and change.” The page singled out government-owned Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. for what it described as a lack of transparency and accountability.

The protest is planned for Saturday, Oct. 15, at 2 p.m., in concert with similar movements around the region. People attending the protest are encouraged to later march toward the Singapore Exchange center.

In a state where political protests are almost unheard of, Occupy Raffles Place has raised eyebrows and prompted a flurry of responses from all over the Twittersphere and blogosphere -– and, inevitably, a warning from the police.

“Police urge members of the public not to be misled and participate in an unlawful activity,” the Singapore Police Force’s Public Affairs Department said in a response to media queries, explaining that it had received reports of a “netizen…instigating the public” to protest at Raffles Place. It remains unclear who is organizing the event.

The statement also pointed out Singapore’s strict and oft-criticized protest and public-gathering laws. In Singapore, citizens are free to hold demonstrations without a permit at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park, a small patch of grass near the city’s center –- provided the gatherings are on matters unrelated to race or religion. Demonstrations or protests elsewhere require government-issued permits, which can be rejected for any perceived threats to “public order and safety.”

The Facebook page urged those planning the event to “make as much noise as possible,” but also encouraged those attending to be peaceful and relaxed, and to refrain from bringing political party or trade-union banners, alcohol or drugs.

The police statement didn’t elaborate on whether authorities will indeed take action if the protest goes ahead, or whether they planned to investigate the administrators of the Facebook page.

“The police can certainly act against the participants,” said Eugene Tan, a professor of law at the Singapore Management University.

Protesters at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, which inspired the Singapore event, have reached a hurdle of their own. Protesters have been told to vacate Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park by 7 a.m. Friday for landlord Brookfield Properties to clean the area. Protest organizers sent an email to supporters on Thursday urging them to “defend the occupation from eviction.”

According to the Facebook page in Singapore, organizers and at least a handful of Singaporeans remain undeterred. A post made after the police issued its warning against the “unlawful” event was defiant, with the group Occupy Singapore posting: “#OccupyRafflesPlace is still HAPPENING!” The guest list on the Facebook page is now disabled, but at last count, at least 75 people had indicated they would attend. Comments “in solidarity” were also posted around the region, particularly from Malaysia and Manila, which are holding their own Occupy protests Saturday.

A vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook, however, were dismissive of the action. People criticized the protest for “not being original” and said they doubted it would be successful in a nation of “armchair critics.” One Twitter user called the event a “massive joke.”

Observers of politics in Singapore say that the foreign roots of the protest are partly to blame for the antipathy.

“The movement lacks organic roots,” said Mr. Tan, who has long been an observer of politics in the city-state. “The foreign roots make it lack traction here.” He added that a “cloak of anonymity” undermines the credibility of the attempt.

Not all were as skeptical. “I have my own reservations about how… it is being planned and what the outcome will be,” said Kirsten Han, a Singaporean blogger. “But it is their right to be doing this… At the very least, let them try.”


http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2011/10/14/protesters-plan-to-occupy-singapore/

Op-Ed Contributors

Labor Rights, Under Republican Attack

By MARK BARENBERG, JAMES BRUDNEY and KARL KLARE

Published: October 13, 2011

In the past month, the National Labor Relations Board has come under furious attack from Republicans in Congress, and decades-old workers’ rights are at risk. Backed by a well-financed lobbying and publicity offensive, Republicans are using a recent labor-law complaint against Boeing to achieve a radical goal that goes far beyond the legal issues in the case: unraveling workers’ rights that have been part of the fabric of our social contract since the Great Depression.

In April, the labor board’s acting general counsel filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company retaliated against unionized workers by opening a nonunion aircraft facility in South Carolina, instead of using a facility in its home state of Washington. Citing multiple public statements by Boeing executives, the general counsel contended that the company decided to locate the plant in South Carolina in significant part to punish its Washington workers for having exercised their right to strike, enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Boeing has an opportunity at trial and in administrative and court appeals to disprove these allegations. It also may avoid the general counsel’s proposed remedy — an order restoring the aircraft production in question to Washington — if it can show that the order would be unduly burdensome.
But for Republicans, the legal process is beside the point. Representative Darrell Issa of California has disparaged the labor board as a “rogue agency,” and the presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called the general counsel’s complaint a “job killer” — even though the outcome of the case will determine only the location, not the number, of jobs. Last month, in an ambush against a federal agency’s powers in a pending case, the Republican-controlled House, voting almost entirely along party lines, approved a bill that would eliminate one of the paramount federal rights afforded workers for decades by prohibiting the labor board from ever ordering any employer to restore jobs illegally outsourced or relocated.
The attack against the Boeing complaint rests on three myths.
Myth No. 1: The general counsel has invoked an unprecedented legal rule. Apart from its unusually large scale (the location of an estimated 1,800 jobs is at stake), the Boeing case involves nothing legally new. The general counsel’s complaint is based on principles accepted by the labor board and the courts over many decades. In 1967, the future Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger (then a federal appellate judge) wrote a decision holding that an employer may not transfer work to punish employees for exercising National Labor Relations Act rights (like the right to strike). Likewise, the labor board has long had the authority to order restoration of work relocated as part of an unfair labor practice, and the appellate courts have approved such orders. In the absence of work restoration, any alternative remedy available to the labor board — like an order that Boeing post a bulletin-board notice promising to obey the law from now on — would be cosmetic.
Myth No. 2: The Boeing complaint means that the government can dictate the location of businesses. Everyone agrees that a company may legally locate its production anywhere it wishes and for any reason — except retaliatory ones. Imagine if Boeing had deliberately located a new plant in an area with a predominantly white labor force and then publicly stated that it did so because it was tired of listening to discrimination complaints made by African-American employees at its home plant. If the general counsel’s allegations are true, Boeing did something legally indistinguishable — unless labor rights no longer count as “real” rights.
Myth No. 3: The general counsel has discretion to drop the case in the name of economic policy. The general counsel is not a policy maker authorized to base decisions on what is good for employment in a particular region of the country. His discretion is confined to enforcing the policy already chosen by Congress in the National Labor Relations Act. If his investigation yields reasonable cause to believe that a violation occurred, his only legally proper course is to bring a case to be decided through the ordinary process. If the Internal Revenue Service determines that a South Carolina employer owes millions in unpaid taxes, should it drop the case if it believes doing so would help the local economy?
The Boeing case is not about jobs. Selecting one place rather than another to build planes creates no additional jobs. The general counsel did his job as the law requires. It would be tragic if his dutiful efforts provided an occasion for Republicans to extinguish decades-old workers’ rights.

Mark Barenberg, James Brudney and Karl Klare are professors of labor law at Columbia, Fordham and Northeastern University, respectively.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opinion/labor-rights-under-republican-attack.html?_r=1

Demanding justice for the 12 year old Christian child who was raped in Pakistan 

October 14, 2011

To                                                                                                 

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari 
President of Pakistan 
President's Secretariat 
Islamabad, PAKISTAN 

Dear Mr. President, 

We, the following social activists and members of the web-based online forum The Moderates, have come to know about a dastardly incident that has taken place in your country through a news release of the Asian Human Rights Commission. Here is the link to the report:http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-199-2011

Attention: A 12 year-old Christian girl has been gang-raped, detained for eight months, forcibly converted and 'married' to her Muslim attacker 

Name of victim: 

Miss Anna (not her real name) 12, daughter of Arif Masih, employed as street sweeper at WAPDA, resident of quarter number 44, WAPDA colony, Shahdra, Lahore, capital of Punjab province, 

Place of incident: WAPDA Quarters resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
Date of incident: December 24, 2010 

Names of alleged perpetrators: 

1. Muhammad Irfan, (rapist) resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
2. Muhammad Irshad, (rapist) resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
3. Mumtaz Bibi.resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
4. Farzana Bibi.resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
5. Kiran Bibi resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
6. Nida, resident of Shadra, factory area, Lahore, Punjab province 
7. Station House Officer (SHO), factory area police station, Shadra, Lahore, Punjab province, 

We are writing to voice our deep concern regarding the gang rape of this young Christian girl who was then forcibly converted to Islam and then 'married' to one of her attackers by the members of a banned religious organization.  As the details of the incident have been well documented in the AHRC report, we would like to refrain from re-stating the horrific story.

The aforesaid report also mentions that as many as 20 to 25 girls from the Hindu community are abducted every month and converted forcibly, according to Amarnath Motumal, an advocate and council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Many abducted girls are raped, others are never heard from again by their families; all cases involved a struggle to access their right to redress.

While the aforesaid incidents are extremely dastardly and inhuman, a general perception about the human rights situation of minorities in Pakistan can be easily gauged from the recent chain of unfortunate incidents including the assassination of Minorities minister Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab Governor Mr. Salmaan Taseer, for supporting minority rights. It has also been reported that the judge who awarded death penalty to Taseer’s killer has gone into hiding fearing threats to his own life. It is easily imaginable that if ministers, Governors and judges advocating minority rights are not safe, how difficult it would be for an ordinary citizen to defend his/her human rights in your country.

Mr. President, we believe that defending and upholding minority rights is one of the foremost responsibilities of a healthy democracy. If your country fails to protect its minorities, it may not only affect the democratic credentials of your country but also promote and bolster anti-minority activities in other countries.

So keeping in mind the human, moral, democratic and civic responsibility of a country to protect human rights of its citizens in general, and those of minorities, in particular, we,  on behalf of The Moderates , urge you to investigate the case of Miss Anna and prosecute all the perpetrators involved in the gang rape of a 12 year old girl for eight months.  We also urge you to provide full protection to the child and her family and the best possible medical treatment and counseling. 

Finally, we request you to ask the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan to provide you with the list of the minority community girls who have been abducted, and instruct your law enforcement agencies to trace them and return them to their families, and provide them with protection.

This email may be acknowledged at the-moderates@googlegroups.com

Thanking you

Yours sincerely, 

1.      Subhashini Ali, India
2.      Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, USA
3.      A. Faizur Rahman, India
4.      Mallika Sarabhai, India
5.      Ghulam Mohiyuddin, USA
6.      Javed Anand, India,
7.      Vidya Subrahmaniam, India
8.      Sumathi Sudhakar, India
9.      Ammu Abraham, India
10. Rohini Hensman, India
11. Sukla Sen, India
12. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, India,
13. Ghiasuddin Akbar, India
14. A.J. Jawad, India
15. Dr. Mookhi Amir Ali, India
16. Juzar S. Bandukwala, India
17. Raoof Mir, India
18. Jyoti Punwani, India
19. Mohammad Imran, USA
20. Mohammed Azad A.K., India
21. Ahmed Syed, India
22.  Maqbool Ahmed Siraj, India
23. Dr. Zaheer Ahmed Sayeed
24.  N.P. Ashley, India
25. Nasreen Fazalbhoy, India
26. T.M. Zackriah Badsha, India
27. N. Roohulla, India
28. Sultan Mushathick, India
29. Altaf Pasha, India
30. Osman Basha, India
31. Faiz Ahmad, India
32. Parvez Bari, India
33.  Melanie P. Kumar, India
34. Fatema Chandra
35. Abdul Rahim Ahmed, India
36. Mufti Shahid Hussain, India
37.  Najid Hussain, USA
38. Dhirendra Sharma, India
39. Deepa Kurup, India
40. Sanobar Sultana, India
41. M.R. Sivaraman, India
42. Akhtar Hussain Zacki, India

Rafiq Nagar(Mumbai) where children died due malnourishment-Grounds not changed yet? 

Dear Pramit Bhattacharya,(HT correspondent)

Movement for Peace&Justice(MPJ.Mah) fact finding report on 16 children died due malnutrition on 13th December 2010 has being vindicated by Mumbai HC a PIL filed in Sep-2011,no nutritious food,no healthcare,no water n sanitation to Rafiq nagar slum dwellers.Its urgent that this poor people get their due entitlements n justice so that they get a dignified life.

 

Your today's article 'Schemes can't stop hunger pangs' in Mumbai HT page 8(links:-http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mumbai/Scheme-can-t-stop-hunger-pangs/Article1-757056.aspx  )

 shows the grounds for the poor in Rafiq Nagar has not changed yet.Also you have failed to asked what has being done in accordance with HC directives to Mah. state? Where is committee and what work has being done till now in regards to Rafiq Nagar Rehabilitation? The committee need to submit its report in one month ie from 19/09/2011,just few days left.(The article was published on 20/09/2011 in HT links:- http://www.hindustantimes.com/Deonar-slum-dwellers-may-be-rehabilitated/Article1-747856.aspx

 

Some of the recommendation and suggestion made in fact finding report are:-

 

     

• ICDS prog. should be implemented with force& proper monitoring. Officials who fails to implement the Schemes should be held responsible& punished and prosecuted according to Court of law.

• The information gathered by the health post is shared with the ICDS officers so that ICDS officers may utilize the information and the statistics gathered for the benefit of the expected mothers and child.

• The inhabitants of the affected area be appointed as Anganwadi sevika and Anganwadi helpers for proper health awareness and care.According to the population Rafiq Nagar needs total four Anganwadi(existing two) with good infra& proper hygienic conditions.

 

• The present damping ground(Govandi,Rafiq nagar,Mumbai) is spread in 110 hectors of land.  Annually approximately 145000 ton of polluted and untreated waste is dumped here. A huge structure equivalent to 7 storey building has set up here as a result of dumping since 1927.  As per affidavit filed in the Bombay High Court, the BMC was to install a garbage recycle unit within a year.  Even the police has promised to set up a chowky outside Deonar damping ground within a year.  Both promises were made 11 years ago, but yet to be fulfilled.

• BMC should identify new site for dumping the waste.
• The present dumping ground should be surrounded by greeneries. Though Municipal Corporation has demarcated reservation “City Park” in its DP Plan and near the said dumping ground.  “City Park” construction should be begun immediately. This demand should be conveyed to Government by public participation & Representatives from all walks of Life.
• 
  
• • BMC’s Department of Health should ensure adequate amount of continuous supply of basic amenities viz water, food and medicinal and hospital facilities for all the citizens and special attention to the underprivileged and the backward sections of the society.
  
  
  • To provide water, BMC should lay new pipelines connection on urgent basis to Rafiq Nagar slum.
  
  
  • For better health care of the expected mothers and the children, the health facilities like mobile van and the health post should be installed.
  
  
  • Health post employee/volunteer should have representation from the habitants of the infected area (dumping ground) for better health awareness.
  
  
  • On PDS:-Antyodaya Anna Yojna(AAY) Card should be allotted to the people of Rafiq Nagar slum on urgent basis, so that the weaker sections of the society gets their due ration.
  
  
  • Government should ensure that BPL Card holders are being provided the promised share of food through PDS.

with warm regards                  mpjmedia@gmail.com

Soheb Lokhandwala               9833627173

mpj media(Mah.)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Deonar-slum-dwellers-may-be-rehabilitated/Article1-747856.aspx

Giving a ray of hope to more than 17,500 residents of Rafiq Nagar slums, on the Deonar dumping ground, the Bombay high court on Monday directed the state government to form a high-level committee to discuss the possibility of rehabilitating the slum dwellers. The slum, located on the dumping ground, is a breeding ground for diseases. Since April 2010, 34 children have died there due to water-borne diseases.

The committee will comprise of senior officials – of joint secretary rank and above — from the Urban Development Department, the Public Housing department, the director (Engineering Services and Projects) of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and an officer designated by the chief executive officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
The division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice DY Chandrachud has given the committee one month to submit a report to the court. 
The HC was hearing public interest litigation filed by an NGO, Movement for Peace and Justice.
Gayatri Singh, counsel for the NGO, pointed out that there were only three health posts, for the six lakh people residing in slums surrounding the dumping ground.  “There are absolutely no civic facilities in the area. They are living in a situation that is unheard of,” she said.
Describing the pitiable conditions of the slum dwellers, an affidavit, filed by an officer from the Women and Child Development Department, stated that there were no sanitation facilities in the area. It also said that 95% of the population of the slum lives right next to where the garbage is dumped, The dwellers are required to put plastic sheets on the ground, to prevent seepage of water from the ground.
An additional municipal commissioner informed the judges that the BMC has already taken up a project, for closing down the dumping ground and converting the garbage into fertiliser.

10,000 protesters lay siege to Tamil Nadu nuclear plant site

10,000 protesters lay siege to Tamil Nadu nuclear plant site

Published: Thursday, Oct 13, 2011, 18:00 IST
By Kumar Chellappan | Place: Chennai | Agency: DNA

The agitation against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant near Tirunelveli reached a feverish pitch on Thursday with more than 10,000 activists laying siege to all the entry points to the project site.
More than 700 scientists and technicians who reached the KNPP for their morning shift could not enter the reactor premises which broughtroutine works to a grinding halt.
“The maintenance works were carried out by the staff on overnight duty who could not come out of the plant because of the road block,” a senior executive of the KNPP told DNA.
This is the first time in the history of the country that the works in a nuclear reactor were affectedfollowing agitation by the local residents.
The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy intensified their agitation within 12 hours of the Prime Minister’s letter to chief minister Jayalalithaa reached the Fort Saint George.
In his letter Manmohan Singh asked Jayalalithaa to help the union government to implement the project as scheduled. He also offered to depute a group of experts to address the legitimate concerns of the people in Kudankulam.
But Pushparayan, the second-in-command to Udaya Kumar , who heads the PMANE, declared that the agitation would continue in a peaceful manner till the reactor was shut down.
“Today morning’s road block is an indication that our agitation has entered into a critical phase. We will not allow anyone to enter the KNPP premises. Today’s blockade has instilled a moral fear in the minds of the KNPP staff,” said Pushparayan.
The road block which began at 8 am in the East Coast Road was shifted to vantage points near the KNPP. “Ours is a Gandhian style agitation and we do not want to create any inconvenience to the people. But this agitation will continue till the government orders the closure of the plant. We do not want the nuclear reactors,” he said.
Even N K Balaji, project director, KNPP could not go inside the plant. “I was asked by the district administration to stay put in my house since the roads have been blocked by the agitators,” he said. Both the Tirunelveli collector and superintendent of police wereunavailable. “Both of them are busy with election duties and conferences ,” said thepersonal assistant to the collector.

Balaji feigned ignorance when asked whether the unit 1 of 1000 MW of the KNPP could be commissionedin October as scheduled. The Prime Minister in his letter had told Jayalalithaa that Tamil Nadu is entitled for 925 MW power once both the units are commissioned.

Intelligence officials said that the agitators resorted to road block because Jayalalithaa was campaigning in the district in connection with the election to the local bodies. “Though she has declared that her support was with the agitators, we are not giving any significance to it. Let her walk the talk for us to believe her assurances,” said Pushparayan.
Meanwhile, a former top intelligence bureau official expressed apprehensions over the agencies behind the agitation. “The possibility of some invisible forces working in a systematic manner to undermine national interests is quite likely. It will, however, require an intensive probe, for which one only wonders how much the present government has the capacity, time and commitment,” he told DNA.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_10000-protesters-lay-siege-to-tamil-nadu-nuclear-plant-site_1598354

Benazir Bhutto’s Alleged Murder Plotter Joins PML-N, Shaikh Rasheed to Follow

Benazir Bhutto’s Alleged Murder Plotter Joins PML-N, Shaikh Rasheed to Follow

By Aijaz Ahmed

Islamabad:  Pakistan Muslim League (N) proudly calls itself a principled party and claims it is against 'lotacracy' and that it always abides by the Charter of Democracy. It also uses the name of Benazir Bhutto whenever it’s leaders want the government to go on the back foot. However its double standards have been exposed as the same "principled" party has allowed an alleged plotter of Benazir Bhutto's murder and a close associate of military dictator Musharraf and the Choudhris of Gujrat to join PML-N.

It may be recalled here that Benazir Bhutto had sent an email in 2007 to her lobbyist in Washington, DC and a family friend, Mark Siegel, containing four names who according to her were plotting her murder according g to her own information. The then Director General IB Brigadier (retd) Ijaz Shah’s name was one of the four suspects nominated by BB herself.

Former IB chief, Brig. Ret. Ijaz Shah

BB’s suspicion of her murder plot was not baseless. She was indeed brutally martyred at Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi on 27^th December 2007. Brigadier Ijaz shortly after the general elections in 2008 ran away from Pakistan and settled in Australia with the blessings of the man at the helm of affairs at that time and he was no other than Musharraf. As Ijaz Shah was also known as a close friend of PML-N’s arch rivals, the Choudhris of Gujrat, the party had started an aggressive campaign when PPP joined hands with the Q league. It had blamed PPP of selling out the murder of BB “Shaheed”.

The PML-N had vowed to take revenge from the murderers if and when it formed a government in the center. But all the claims, love and respect for BB has proved to be false and a mere political stunt as Ijaz Shah who returned to Lahore few weeks back after a secret settlement with Punjab government has formally joined PML-N few days back and signed the membership form of the party from Nankana Sahib, suburban town of Sheikhupura near Lahore and the place of birth of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikh religion and a great fighter against state repression.

No word of sorry has been tendered by the “principled” PML-N leadership to the followers of BB most of whom had started believing in Nawaz Sharif after losing their faith in Asif Zardari. The reason given by PML-N for taking such people and members of Q league in the party ranks is most interesting. Senator Pervez Rasheed while giving his reaction to a question about the talks with Q league responded positively and uttered that “we will talk with everybody willing to join us against Zardari Raj”. ‘We are in contact with PML-Q and will accept anybody except the Choudhris of Gujrat. We want to isolate them in politics and will go to any extent’, he added.

  

The “principled” PML-N now seems to follow the policy of lotacracy which it talked against so much at one time to stop it’s arch rival PPP from gaining majority in the Senate in March next year. Sumera Malik, a close aide of Musharraf and a cause of confrontation between Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry and General Musharraf has now become very close to Mian Sahib. She is going to join PML-N despite being a member from PML-Q. She earlier tried to join PPP, but her relationship with Farooq Leghari did not prove very helpful.

Next in line is Sheikh Rasheed of Lal Haveli. He has established contacts with his former party and is all set to become a PML-N candidate from NA 55 in next general elections. He was the man who had categorically refused Begum Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif to support a pro Nawaz Movement after 12^th October, 1999 and had later joined Musharraf camp. He claimed himself to be a non-official spokesman of GHQ. One can imagine what will be the situation like when he will walk with Nawaz Sharif who claims to be an anti military dictatorship. But that is surely confined to a dictatorship that removed him from the Prime Minister House. Thus the proverb, that politics has no permanent foes or friend is proved true once again and lotacracy is in the vogue again.

 

http://indusherald.blogspot.com/2011/10/benazir-bhuttos-alleged-murder-plotter.html

Hindu woman entitled to equal property rights and Liabilities in the property of HUF – SC

Hindu woman entitled to equal property rights and Liabilities in the property of HUF – SC

Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. Versus Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. (Supreme Court)-A Hindu woman or girl will have equal property rights along with other male relatives for any partition made in intestate succession after September 2005.  under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters are entitled to equal inheritance rights along with other male siblings, which was not available to them prior to the amendment. The apex court said the female inheritors would not only have the succession rights but also the same liabilities fastened on the property along with the male members. According to the apex court, the right that accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except under certain circumstances. The exceptions are (i) where the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken place before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where testamentary disposition of property has been made before December 20, 2004.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR. VERSUS CHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.

Civil Appeal No. 8538 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010)-

Decided on 12-10- 2011.

JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.-
Leave granted.

2. The question that arises in this appeal, by special leave, is: whether the benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are available to the appellants.

3. The appellants and the respondents are siblings being daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole impleading his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd defendant) and his two sisters – the present appellants – as 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. In respect of schedule properties `A’, `C’ and `D’ – coparcenary property – the plaintiff claimed that he, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have 1/3rd share each. As regards schedule property `B’–as the property belonged to his mother–he claimed that all the parties have 1/5th equal share.

4. The 1st defendant died in 1993 during the pendency of the suit.
5. The trial court vide its judgment and preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 declared that plaintiff was entitled to 1/3 rd share in the schedule `A’, `C’ and `D’ properties and further entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share left by the 1st defendant. As regards schedule property `B’ the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/5 th share. The controversy in the present appeal does not relate to schedule `B’ property and is confined to schedule `A’, `C’ and `D’ properties. The trial court ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits.
6. The above preliminary decree was amended on September 27, 2003 declaring that plaintiff was entitled to equal share along with 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendant in 1/5th share left by the 1st defendant in schedule property `B’.
7. In furtherance of the preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 and the amended preliminary decree dated September 27, 2003, the plaintiff made two applications before the trial court (i) for passing the final decree in terms thereof; and (ii) for determination of mesne profits. The trial court appointed the Commissioner for division of the schedule property and in that regard directed him to submit his report. The Commissioner submitted his report.

8. In the course of consideration of the report submitted by the Commissioner and before passing of the final decree, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short, `2005 Amendment Act’) came into force on September 9, 2005. By 2005 Amendment Act, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act’) was substituted. Having regard to 2005 Amendment  Act which we shall refer to appropriately at a later stage, the present appellants (3rd and 4th  defendant) made an application for passing the preliminary decree in their favour for partition of schedule properties `A’, `C’ and `D’ into four equal shares; allot one share to each of them by  metes and bounds and for delivery of possession.
9. The application made by 3rd and 4th defendant was contested by the plaintiff. Insofar as 2nd defendant is concerned he admitted that the 3rd and 4th defendant are entitled to share as claimed by them pursuant to 2005 Amendment Act but he also submitted that they were liable for the debts of the family.
10. The trial court, on hearing the parties, by its order dated June 15, 2009, allowed the application of the present appellants (3rd and 4th defendant) and held that they were entitled for re-allotment of shares in the preliminary decree, i.e., they are entitled to 1/4th share each and separate possession in schedule properties `A’, `C’ and `D’.
11. The plaintiff (present respondent no. 1) challenged the order of the trial court in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Single Judge by his order dated August 26, 2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court.
12. 1956 Act is an Act to codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. This Act has brought about important changes in the law of succession but without affecting the special rights of the members of a Mitakshara Coparcenary. The Parliament felt that non-inclusion of daughters in the Mitakshara Coparcenary property was causing discrimination to them and, accordingly, decided to bring in necessary changes in the law. The statement of objects and reasons of the 2005 Amendment Act, inter alia, reads as under :

“…… The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary property without including the females in it means that the females cannot inherit in ancestral property as their male counterparts do. The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. Having regard to the need to render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property.”

13. With the above object in mind, the Parliament substituted the existing Section 6 of the 1956 Act by a new provision vide 2005 Amendment Act. After substitution, the new Section 6 reads as follows :”6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.—
(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- -

(a)    by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b)   have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,–

(a)    the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b)   the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre- deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre- deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre- deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation.– For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect –

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation.–For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004.
Explanation. –For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.”

14. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the coparcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from September 9, 2005. The Legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a copercener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the coparcener shall  have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son is  unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus, on and from September 9, 2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a coparcener as if she had been a son.

15. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6. The excepted categories to which new Section 6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable are two, namely, (i) where the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken place before December 20, 2004; and (ii) where testamentary disposition of property has been made before December 20, 2004. Sub- section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt as it provides that this Section shall not apply to the partition which has been effected before December 20, 2004. For the purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that `partition’ means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. In light of a clear provision contained in the Explanation appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for determining the non- applicability of the Section, what is relevant is to find out whether the partition has been effected before December 20, 2004 by deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. In the backdrop of the above legal position with reference to Section 6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005 Amendment Act, the question that we have to answer is as to whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court on March 19, 1999 and amended on September 27, 2003 deprives the appellants of the benefits of 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for partition has not yet been passed.

16. The legal position is settled that partition of a Joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter-alia, two of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and (two) by a decree of the court. In the present case, admittedly, the partition has not been effected before December 20, 2004 either by a registered instrument of partition or by a decree of the court. The only stage that has reached in the suit for partition filed by the respondent no.1 is the determination of shares vide preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 which came to be amended on September 27, 2003 and the receipt of the report of the Commissioner.
17. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation. We are fortified in our view by a 3- Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Phoo!chand and Anr. Vs. Gopa! La! [AIR 1967 SC 1470] wherein this Court stated as follows:

“We are of opinion that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree if circumstances justify the same and that it may be necessary to do so particularly in partition suits when after the preliminary decree some parties die and shares of other parties are thereby augmented. . . . .. So far therefore as partition suits are concerned we have no doubt that if an event transpires after the preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the court can and should do so;    there is no prohibition in the Code of Civil Procedure against passing a second preliminary decree in such circumstances and we do not see why we should rule out a second preliminary decree in such circumstances only on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate such a possibility. . . for it must not be forgotten that the suit is not over till the final decree is passed and the court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise after the preliminary decree, particularly in a partition suit due to deaths of some of the parties. . . . .a second preliminary decree can be passed in partition suits by which the shares allotted in the preliminary decree already passed can be amended and if there is dispute between surviving parties in that behalf and that dispute is decided the decision amounts to a decree  .“

18. This Court in the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy and Others [(1991) 3 SCC 647 11] had an occasion to consider the question identical to the question with which we are faced in the present appeal. That was a case where during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit for partition before the trial court and prior to the passing of final decree, the 1956 Act was amended by the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh as a result of which unmarried daughters became entitled to a share in the joint family property. The unmarried daughters respondents 2 to 5 therein made application before the trial court claiming their share in the property after the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The trial court by its judgment and order dated August 24, 1989 rejected their application on the ground that the preliminary decree had already been passed and specific shares of the parties had been declared and, thus, it was not open to the unmarried daughters to claim share in the property by virtue of the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The unmarried daughters preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court and declared that in view of the newly added Section 29-A, the unmarried daughters were entitled to share in the joint family property. The High Court further directed the trial court to determine the shares of the unmarried daughters accordingly. The appellant therein challenged the order of the High Court before this Court. This Court considered the matter thus;

“… A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz., by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree of the court. When a suit for partition is filed in a 12 court, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. The preliminary decree which determines shares does not bring about the final partition. For, pending the final decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events. In the instant case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had been passed and before the final decree could be passed the amending Act came into force as a result of which clause (ii) of Section 29-A of the Act became applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying shares of the parties like any supervening development. Since the legislation is beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section of the society in all its stratas, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also, we cannot equate the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case with a mere severance of the status of the joint family which can be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits”.

19. The above legal position is wholly and squarely applicable to the present case. It surprises us that the High Court was not apprised of the decisions of this Court in Phoolchand and S. Sai Reddy. High Court considered the matter as follows:

“In the recent past, the Parliament amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short `the Act’), according status of coparceners to the female members of the family also. Basing their claim on amended Section 6 of the Act, the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A. No. 564 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C., a provision, which applies only to preparation of final decree. It hardly needs an emphasis that a final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree. If any party wants alteration or change of preliminary decree, the only course open to him or her is to file an appeal or to seek other remedies vis-` -vis the preliminary decree. As long as the preliminary decree stands, the allotment of shares cannot be in a manner different from what is ordained in it.”

20. The High Court was clearly in error in not properly appreciating the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit for partition of immovable property, if such property is not assessed to the payment of revenue to the government, ordinarily passing of a preliminary decree declaring the share of the parties may be required. The court would thereafter proceed for preparation of final decree. In Phoolchand1, this Court has stated the legal position that C.P.C. creates no impediment for even more than one preliminary decree if after passing of the preliminary decree events have taken place necessitating the readjustment of shares as declared in the preliminary decree. The court has always power to revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for partition continues after the passing of the preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit get extinguished only on passing of the final decree. It is not correct statement of law that once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone and no other proceedings.

21. Section 97 of C. P.C. that provides that where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the commencement of the Code does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree does not create any hindrance or obstruction in the power of the court to modify, amend or alter the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the changed circumstances so require.

22. It is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree.

23. The view of the High Court is against law and the decisions of this Court in Phoolchand1 and S.Sai Reddy.

24. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court dated June 15, 2009. The trial court shall now proceed for the preparation of the final decree in terms of its order dated June 15, 2009. No costs.

http://taxguru.in/corporate-law/hindu-woman-entitled-equal-property-rights-liabilities-property-huf-sc.html