dzbwrrpz

Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Amendment To BDA Act To Regularize Illegal Constructions

first_imgNews UpdatesKarnataka High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Amendment To BDA Act To Regularize Illegal Constructions Mustafa Plumber18 Dec 2020 1:54 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notice to the State Government and in a petition challenging the state amendment to the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, which came into force on July 10, 2020 and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act KTCP Amendment Act which came into force on July 31, 2020. The BDA Amendment Act seeks to…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notice to the State Government and in a petition challenging the state amendment to the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, which came into force on July 10, 2020 and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Fourth Amendment) Act KTCP Amendment Act which came into force on July 31, 2020. The BDA Amendment Act seeks to inter alia, legalize the illegal occupation and construction on lands owned by the Bengaluru Development Authority. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty issued the notice returnable on January 28, 2021 and directed the respondent to file their statement of objections before January 25, 2021. The petition filed by Vijayan Menon states that “The BDA Amendment Act, like the Akrama Sakrama Scheme, is prima facie violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243ZE of the Constitution of India and is also contrary to the existing provisions of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976.” Senior Advocate Harish Narasappa appearing for the petitioner submitted that: “The state had, in 2014, sought to amend several state legislations in order to regularize and legalize several unauthorized and illegal constructions in Karnataka and the said scheme was commonly referred to as the Akrama Sakrama Scheme. Matters challenging the scheme are pending before the Supreme Court and by way of interim relief by order dated May 04, 2017 the court has stayed the implementation of the Scheme.” The plea states that “The implementation of the BDA Amendment Act would render infructuous the current challenge to the Akrama Sakrama Scheme. The BDA Amendment Act detrimentally affects the residents of Bengaluru as the said Amendment Act incentivises land grabbers to illegally occupy government lands as the said illegal occupation would later on be legalized and regularized as a result of the said Amendment Act. The KTCP Amendment Act seeks to allow an increase in the floor area ratio for buildings by mere payment of premium charges to the Government.” It is further said that “The BDA Amendment Act, prospectively penalizes jurisdictional officers for their failure to prevent unauthorised constructions/occupations on BDA land from the date of the commencement of the BDA Amendment Act. In effect, the same amounts to excusing the jurisdictional officers for failure to prevent the unauthorized constructions/occupations on BDA lands prior to the date of the commencement of the BDA Amendment Act.” It is also claimed that The BDA Amendment Act has been enacted without due public consultation and the BDA Amendment Act has been enacted without having been brought to the notice of the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning BMPC which is a constitutional body set up under Section 503-B of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 in accordance with Article 243ZE of the Constitution of India. The plea says that if urgent interim reliefs and / or measures are not passed, it would result in irreversible damage to the urban landscape of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area as several unauthorised constructions will be rendered legal. The petition prays for a declaration that the BDA Amendment Act, the KTCP Amendment Act and the KTCP Amended Rules Notification as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243ZE of the Constitution of India. It seeks to call for records from the respondents with respect to any action they may have taken in connection with the BDA Amendment Act, the KTCP Amendment Act and the KTCP Amended Rules Notification. By way of interim relief it has sought for direction to the respondents and their officials restraining them from entertaining any applications for allotment under the BDA Amendment Act or from entertaining any applications for grant of permission for utilization of premium floor area ratio during the pendency of the petition.Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

hzepiozf

Two more former paperboys come forward to allege sexual abuse by supervisor: Lawsuit

first_imgpeepo/iStockBy KATE HOLLAND, ABC News(NEW YORK) — Two former paperboys for a Gannett-owned newspaper filed a complaint on Friday alleging that they were sexually abused by their supervisor nearly 40 years ago, joining five other former paperboys who have made similar allegations.Ballard Tackett, 47, and Kelby Ash, 49, allege that they were repeatedly molested by Jack J. Lazeroff, a onetime district sales manager for the Rochester, N.Y.-based Democrat & Chronicle, when Lazeroff oversaw their paper route between 1982 and 1985, when Tackett was 11 to 12 years old and Ash was 11 to 13 years old.Lazeroff’s misconduct was widely known among D&C staff, the complaint alleges, but the newspaper and its corporate owner Gannett Co., Inc., failed to protect the boys under their care, custody and control, directly resulting in their abuse.“The D&C negligently hired Lazeroff then failed to properly supervise him … permitted Lazeroff unfettered and unsupervised access to … young children, failed to address sexual abuse that was occurring in plain sight, and exposed Plaintiffs to danger,” the filing reads. “As a result of the wrongful conduct of the D&C, Plaintiffs were sexually abused.”Lazeroff was arrested in 1987 and charged with disorderly conduct, according to the lawsuit, after an employee at a donut shop told police that Lazeroff came into the donut shop “almost daily with a young paperboy” whom he would touch inappropriately. The police report identifies three D&C paperboys who Lazeroff had taken there. It is unclear, however, how the case was resolved.Lazeroff was arrested again in 1988, the lawsuit said, and “charged with sexual abuse in the second degree,” but he was reportedly allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid jail time.Lazeroff died in 2003, but five other former D&C paperboys have since publicly accused him of sexual abuse, filing two separate claims against the newspaper and parent company in October 2019 and February 2020. All three filings allege that Lazeroff was hired by the D&C after being fired from his position at a Rochester bank for openly abusing high school boys who came in to apply for student loans.Spokespeople for the newspaper and its parent company did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.According to statements from several former employees detailed in the complaints, Lazeroff was ultimately fired from the paper for “messing with a paperboy,” though the exact date is unclear. The D&C has published several articles about Lazeroff, writing in one that the complaints “do not cite any direct evidence” substantiating the reason for Lazeroff’s termination from the paper.In 2019, the D&C reported that Lazeroff “might have been a sexual predator,” but that “It could not be determined whether any of Lazeroff’s supervisors at the Democrat and Chronicle knew of or acted on the allegations of misconduct against him.”Child news carriers are largely a relic of the past. A 1987 study conducted by what later became the News Media Alliance reportedly found that newspapers replaced at least 70,000 paperboys and girls with adults during the 1980s.But an understanding of the dangers of the profession have only just begun to emerge. In 2018, The Columbia Journalism Review reported that at least 12 child newspaper carriers were “abducted, sexually abused or killed” between 1970 and 1993.With their lawsuit, Tackett and Ash join thousands of other people seeking restitution through the New York State court system under the Child Victims Act, passed in 2019 and recently extended until 2021, that allows victims of childhood sexual abuse to pursue civil claims that would have otherwise expired under the state’s statute of limitations.According to James Marsh, a partner at Marsh Law Firm PLLC, which represents all seven of Lazeroff’s alleged victims, these cases “highlight the risk that all children face.”“The realization that it isn’t just scouts or students or alter boys who are at-risk for child sex abuse is profound and these lawsuits are a good example of how predators will take advantage of children wherever and however they can,” Marsh told ABC News in a statement. “Power, access, and opportunity can place any child at risk anywhere from anyone. Even a paperboy trying their best to finish their route before school can be victimized, which, while a shocking realization, also unfortunately makes perfect sense.”Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.last_img read more