------------------------------------------------------------------------ * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sangath, www.sangath.com, is looking to build a centre for services, training and research and seeks to buy approx 1500 to 2000 sq mtrs land betweeen Mapusa and Bambolim and surrounding rural areas. Please contact: [email protected] or [email protected] or ph+91-9881499458 http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-July/180028.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ While the two fine gentlemen i.e. Eddie Fernandes and George Pinto sort out their 'questions', I will take the liberty of stating two points: POINT 1: I believe that, at this point and time, both Eddie and George believe that UK citizens (or anyone else) who have bought land in Goa legally (or as Vivian has so correctly noted, without having done any illegality - to the best of their knowledge and the professional advice they received) should be allowed to get on with their lives in peace (and if I may add - without being harrassed by ignorant bigots, greedy lawyers, corrupt police and silly goose politicians) POINT 2: It has been my understanding that many (though not necessarily all) of those who bought homes in Goa, have done well for the homes and communities. Vivian has just confirmed my understanding. As long as they are NOT destroying the environment by way of : Cutting Down Hillsides and Decimating the greenery to make way for the "Villas", Goa can only benefit from gradual and incremental investment into its land and infrastructual development. We Goans should welcome those who want to buy neglected houses with the intention of restoring them and living peacefully in them. On the matter of Retrospective Effects of legislation (and I know that the present circumstances in Goa are slightly different, but arguable when push comes to shove), Attached Infra is a snippet on the topic from my notes of a couple of years ago. In summary: When the "people's" interests are enough to over-ride 'principle', the British Parliament may legislate any Act - In India's case, if any Act violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court could hold it to be unconstitutional. It is important for us to know that: Britain has a slightly lame leg to stand on - in this matter. BUT, we should not immitate Britain in all her actions. Should we? In 1965, Britain and her Parliament got away with Retrospectively effective Legislation ....with No (written) Constitution to follow and No Supreme Court empowered to find its legislations as being "unconstitutional". (After Oct 2000 ...of course, the Human Rights Act 1998 became effective) jc == Against Retrospective effect of new law: Courts operate a presumption or interpretation that Statutes will not operate retrospectively. It is one thing for Parliament to legislate that, for instance, as from next year all foxhunting will be illegal. It would be another thing for Parliament to legislate that Anyone who has participated in such an event during the last five years is open to prosecution today. The principle operates not only to stop people whose conduct was innocent at the time - from being convicted - by a Looking Back Act. Also - if an Act decriminalises certain conduct (say ...smoking pot) in 2006, It stops people who were guilty of the crime in 2005 from going free. As Parliament is a supreme body, it can pass retrospective legislation if it wishes. The War Damages Act 1965 was passed specifically to overrule the decision of the House of Lords in Burmah Oil Co Ltd v The Lord Advocate (1965) The Oil company's installations in Burma (then a British colony) had been destroyed by the British forces in 1942 in order to prevent them from being captured by the Japanese forces. The company (Burmah Oil - registered in Scotland) sued the Crown for compensation. The Crown contended that no compensation was payable when property was destroyed under the Royal Prerogative. The House of Lords decided that compensation was payable. Parliament - in order to prevent the burden of compensation having to be met by the taxpayer - passed the The War Damages Act Another example of an expressely retrospective modern legislation is the War Crimes Act 1991 which allows the Attorney General to authorise criminal proceedings for homicide committed in Germany or German occupied territory. ref: English Legal System (2004) by Gary Slapper and David Kelly
