In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s judgment regarding validity of differential compensation based on land classification and its clarification for an earlier order regarding adoption. We also look at Karnataka High Court’s intervention to ensure pension arrears are paid to freedom fighter, Madras High court’s observation of police enquiries and Human right violation and Delhi Court’s judgment to demolish place of worship obstructing a pedestrian pathway. 102 years old Freedom fighter gets pension arrears after intervention of Karnataka HC Karnataka High Court has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to pay the pension arrears that were withheld from a 102-year-old Freedom fighter, as he was unable to submit the Life Certificate to the bank. As per the case details, the pension of one Mr. H. Nagabhushana Rao (the petitioner) was abruptly stopped on 01 November 2017. After enquiry, it was indicated that the pension was stopped because the petitioner has not submitted his Life Certificate for the year 2017-18. It was later submitted only on 24 December 2018. The Government issued a sanction letter belatedly releasing pension for the period 24 December 2018 to 5 October 2020. However, the earlier arrears for the period 01 November 2017 to 24 December 2018 were not released. This amounted to Rs. 3.71 lakhs. Hence, he approached the court with a petition for the release of the arrears. The court directed the respondents of the case to take appropriate action within two weeks. Since there was no action, the petitioner moved a contempt petition, post which the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a sanction letter, dated 5 December 2020. However, the arrears were not released stating that the Life Certificate was not submitted. Hence, he once again approached the court, which considered the petition and directed the Government of India to take appropriate action and disburse the arrears based on the terms of the scheme. A communication was issued by the Government that the pensioner is not entitled to arrears as he did not submit the life certificate. Union government submitted that it is not responsible for deduction or non-payment of pension and non-submission of life certificate will automatically stop the pension because the entry is made by the Bank. The bank argued that as per the guidelines of the scheme, the life certificate has to be submitted and it is not their responsibility to go and collect the life certificate. The single Judge bench comprising of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioner is the recipient of Swatantra Sainik Samman Gaurava Dhana as a Freedom Fighter, from the Government of India since 1974. As per the Guidelines for payment of pension under the Central Samman Pension Scheme, the Bank is expected to visit the pensioner in case the life certificate is not submitted. This needs to be done to find out the reason for non-submission as this would help the Banks to have a timely update in case the pensioner has died and recover the excess payment made. The court stated that although it is the duty of the pensioner to submit the life certificate, the duty also falls on the banker to check in case of non-submission rather than stopping the pension. The court also expressed its regret for the apathy shown towards the petitioner who is very old. It noted that pension is a right and has a broader significance of ensuring socio-economic justice. The court clarified that the Bank is not obliged to check in every case but needs to in the cases where there are genuine problems of pensioners who are unable to visit the bank. Supreme Court: Land acquisition compensation can’t be different based on nature of ownership. In its judgement relating to Civil appeals filed, Supreme Court struck down the classification made by the Greater NOIDA Authority between Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini landlords for the purpose of compensation. In 1998, the Board of NOIDA classified the landholders into “Pushtaini” and “Gair-Pushtaini” for the purpose of granting additional compensation upon acquisition. The Pushtaini landholders were given additional compensation of @Rs. 3 per sq. yard along with 15% on the compensation awarded for rehabilitation bonus and 10% area of the acquired land. These benefits were not accorded to Gair-Pushtaini. In 2009, the State government granted approval for the enhanced compensation for a certain class of landholders. Petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the decision of the Board and the State Government’s approval on this. The Divisional Bench of the High court upheld the classification as reasonable. In the other petitions filed, the Division Bench of the High Court disagreed with the decision of the co-ordinate bench.