An Indo-Canada based Advocacy Group for NRIs's Rights & Concerns in India and Abroad.

Friday, March 11, 2016

India Real Estate Bill: 10 key features

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Liberals set to repeal immigration bill C-24 critics decried as path to two-tiered Canadian citizenship

OTTAWA - 24th February, 2016 : Immigration Minister John McCallum says the government will announce significant changes to the Citizenship Act in the coming days.
Mr. McCallum said Tuesday that the Liberals will soon follow through on their election pledge to repeal the Conservatives’ controversial Bill C-24, which gave the government the power to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage.
Asked when the changes will be unveiled, Mr. McCallum told The Globe and Mail to expect an announcement “in coming days, but not very many days.”
During last year’s election campaign, the Liberal platform committed to “repeal the unfair elements of Bill C-24 that create second-class citizens and the elements that make it more difficult for hard-working immigrants to become Canadian citizens.”
Mr. McCallum said the government’s announcement will make it impossible to revoke citizenship.
“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” Mr. McCallum said, repeating a line used by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a heated election debate last September. “We would not revoke people’s citizenship. … That will certainly be a part of it [the announcement],” the Immigration Minister added.
Mr. McCallum said the government will also remove barriers to citizenship posed by Bill C-24.
“We believe that it’s better to make it easier rather than harder for people to become citizens.”
However, he did not say which specific barriers would be addressed.
One major point of contention in Bill C-24 was a provision stiffening language requirements for newcomers. Before the changes, those between the ages of 18 and 54 were required to meet language requirements in English or French and pass a Canadian knowledge test, for which they were allowed to seek the help of an interpreter. When the bill became law, the age range expanded to 14 to 64, and interpreters were no longer allowed to help.
The law also made would-be Canadians wait longer to apply for citizenship and imposed a $300 application fee for adult citizenship applicants, up from $100, which was increased by the department again on Jan. 1, 2015 to $530 to “more closely reflect the costs associated with processing citizenship applications.”
Mr. McCallum told reporters Tuesday that the government will table its annual immigration report before March 9.
The report was supposed to be tabled by Nov. 1, but the fall election delayed its release. Since the House of Commons was not sitting on Nov. 1, the law requires the government to table the report within 30 sitting days of Parliament returning.
Mr. McCallum said the report will outline targets for all classes of immigrants, including Syrian refugees. While the minister has previously said the government hopes to settle a total of 35,000 to 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016, he said the exact number – “in that ballpark” – will be outlined in the immigration report. He added that the government is on track to reach its promise of resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February.
Furio De Angelis, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) representative to Canada, said the government’s continued commitment to resettle Syrian refugees throughout 2016 is “very important,” especially ahead of a key UN conference on legal resettlement pathways for Syrian refugees, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland in March.
“I’m sure that Canada will present its own model of legal pathways [at the conference]. It will be a role model and we hope that this will create similar programs in other countries,” Mr. De Angelis said in an interview with The Globe.
While Mr. De Angelis said domestic targets are “crucial,” he said it’s also important to not get bogged down in the numbers.
“When we are talking about needs in the humanitarian operations context … developments of targets sort of diminish because the needs are so large.”

Saturday, January 30, 2016

How to protect your land from illegal possession suggests B.S.Ghuman, NRI Lawyer

Invest in farm land the legal way & profit from it

Investment on a piece of land is a safe bet as it assures huge return on investment. But how safe is your property deal? With land grabbers on the prowl and often multiple individuals claiming ownership of a single plot, buyers have to be extremely careful before investing in land, and also take steps to prevent encroachments.

NRI Law Group suggests some do`s and don`ts to lock a legal and smooth land deal.

Legal Issues

Don't Forget To Ask A Good Law Firm To Do Due Paper Work!

Once you have zeroed in on the land, you have to turn your attention to the most important hurdle you may have to surmount: the legal issues. Tell yourself again and again that this is the most crucial step involved in buying a piece of agricultural land. Mr. Ghuman suggests an easy way out: "Ask a sound law firm to do due diligence. Ensure that the title of the land is clear. If you do not have the wherewithal to check the legal issues, then engage a proper realtor or local broker to check them." "The most common mistake is that people don't see if the land has been properly acquired or not, whether the farmers have been rehabilitated or not. There can be numerous problems. You buy land and then realise there are many issues," says Ghuman. He gives some useful tips on how to avoid such mistakes: "Study the state bylaws before buying agricultural land. Land should not have any encumbrance or litigation on it. Also, have a thorough title due-diligence done on the land with at least 30 years historical title check done. There should be no minor, etc, as owner of the land. Make sure that there are no village roads/lanes, well, etc, on the land and there are no LT/HT electrical wires running thought the land." Get your land demarcated clearly, and ensure that the seller gets the boundary wall or fencing done before the title is transferred, he says.Before signing the cheque for the purchase, you need to carefully plan how you are going to take care of the land. Living in a city and taking care of a land far away won't be an easy task. Ghuman suggests a viable solution: "You can hire contract farming firms that will man age the land for you. These contract farming firms may be on a profit-sharing basis. Prior to the acquisition of the land, a contract farming firm could do the testing of the soil to determine what crop can be grown."

Security Issues

Security issues related to such land are usually more complex, feel experts. "If you buy land in a community society then at least there is somebody to look after the land. But if you buy an independent plot, then there is the problem of guarding it as well, which can become very costly," says Ghuman. "Get the fencing and security right, it is very important," says Narayan. "Prima facie, one needs to make sure that there is no land grabbing or the neighbour doesn't extend the boundaries to your land. Hence, basic costs are for creating a boundary wall and a guard," says Ghuman.

A Home Away From Home

But don't start building holiday home in the air, though. Laws prohibit building of holiday homes on agricultural land. Ghuman says, "A farm land is ideally a piece of land where you can do farming. It should not be confused with a holiday home. Different states have different laws for conversion of farm land into a holiday home, motel, hotel. There is a process laid down by each state which governs the change of land use." So, before you build a holiday home, study the laws of the state where you plan to buy the land. Ghuman warns that holiday homes are not great investment options. "A holiday home is mainly a lifestyle option. There's not much scope for investment in such a home because the liquidity is not great." But make no mistake, land is always a valuable investment. "Holding land may be sensible, given the increasing demand for food grains," says Ghuman. "If you have already bought land, it is better to hold on to it as the purchase cost is not likely to be very high," says Ghuman.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Panama Boat Tragedy

ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਜਾਂਦਿਆਂ ਕਿਸ਼ਤੀ ਡੁੱਬਣ ਦਾ ਮਾਮਲਾ ਦੋਵੇਂ ਟ੍ਰੈਵਲ ਏਜੰਟ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਰਿਮਾਂਡ 'ਤੇ

25 From Punjab Feared Drowned Near Panama, Badal Government Sends Team to US

ਕਪੂਰਥਲਾ, 19 ਜਨਵਰੀ (ਸਡਾਨਾ)-ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਬੇੜੀ ਡੁੱਬਣ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਭੁਲੱਥ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦੋ ਟਰੈੱਵਲ ਏਜੰਟਾਂ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਦਰਜ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਕਥਿਤ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਹਰਭਜਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੀ ਤਿੰਨ ਦਿਨਾਂ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਰਿਮਾਂਡ 'ਤੇ ਹੈ, ਜਦਕਿ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਅੱਜ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਨੇ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ | ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੇ ਦੋ ਦਿਨ ਦੇ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਰਿਮਾਂਡ 'ਤੇ ਭੇਜ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ | ਇੱਥੇ ਜ਼ਿਕਰਯੋਗ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਦੋਵਾਂ ਏਜੰਟਾ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਦੇ ਖ਼ੁਲਾਸੇ ਉਪਰੰਤ ਪਰਿਵਾਰਕ ਮੈਂਬਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤ 'ਤੇ ਧੋਖਾਧੜੀ ਦਾ ਕੇਸ ਦਰਜ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ, ਜਿਸ ਤਹਿਤ ਦੋਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗਿ੍ਫ਼ਤਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਉਪਰੰਤ ਇਨ•ਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਾਥੀ ਦਿਆਲਪੁਰ ਵਾਸੀ ਸੈਮੂਅਲ ਬੰਟੀ ਦੀ ਭਾਲ ਹੇਠ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਛਾਪੇਮਾਰੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਇਸ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਟਰੈੱਵਲ ਏਜੰਟਾ 'ਚ ਵੀ ਭਾਜੜਾ ਪਈਆਂ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਹਨ, ਜੋ ਕਿ ਗਲਤ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਨੌਜਵਾਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਭੇਜਣ ਦੇ ਝਾਂਸੇ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਠੱਗੀ ਮਾਰਦੇ ਹਨ | ਪੁਲਿਸ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਏਜੰਟਾ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਿਕੰਜਾ ਕੱਸਣ ਦੀ ਤਿਆਰੀ ਕਰ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਭਵਿੱਖ 'ਚ ਅਜਿਹੀਆਂ ਘਟਨਾਵਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ | 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

'ਆਤਮ-ਹੱਤਿਆ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਹੁਣ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਨਹੀਂ'

ਨਵੀਂ ਦਿੱਲੀ, 24 ਫਰਵਰੀ - ਸਰਕਾਰ ਨੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸੁਝਾਅ ਨੂੰ ਸਵੀਕਾਰ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਇਹ ਫ਼ੈਸਲਾ ਲਿਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਆਤਮ-ਹੱਤਿਆ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਹੁਣ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ,ਇਸਦੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਲੋਕ ਸਭਾ 'ਚ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਰਾਜ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਹਰੀਭਾਈ ਚੌਧਰੀ ਨੇ ਦਿੱਤੀ। ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਕਿ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੀ 210ਵੀਂ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ 'ਚ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਆਈ ਪੀ ਸੀ ਧਾਰਾ ਸੈਕਸਨ 309 ਤਹਿਤ ਆਤਮ-ਹੱਤਿਆ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਨੂੰ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਮੰਨਣਾ ਨੂੰ ਬਦਲਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਹ ਗੈਰ-ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਹੈ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਇਹ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨਕ ਹੋਵੇ ਜਾਂ ਗੈਰ-ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨਕ। ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਮੰਤਰਾਲੇ ਨੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸੁਝਾਅ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਦਿਆ ਇਕ ਨੋਟ ਜੋ ਆਈ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ.ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ309 ਨੂੰ ਹਟਾਉਣ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵ ਹੈ ਵਿਧਾਨਕ ਵਿਭਾਗ, ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਤੇ ਨਿਆਂ ਮੰਤਰਾਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਸੋਧ ਬਿੱਲ ਦਾ ਖਰੜਾ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਭੇਜ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ।

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

In Canada, Now police can search cellphones without warrant during arrest: Court

OTTAWA – A divided Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that police can conduct a limited search of suspect’s cellphone without getting a search warrant, but they must follow strict rules.
By a 4-3 margin, the court said in a precedent-setting ruling that the search must be directly related to the circumstances of a person's arrest and the police must keep detailed records of the search.
Three dissenting justices said the police must get a search warrant in all cases except in rare instances where there is a danger to the public or the police, or if evidence could be destroyed.
It is the first Supreme Court ruling on cellphone privacy, an issue that has spawned a series of divergent lower court rulings.
The high court dismissed the appeal of the 2009 armed robbery conviction of Kevin Fearon, who argued unsuccessfully that police violated his charter rights when they searched his cellphone without a warrant after he’d robbed a Toronto jewelry kiosk.
The court agreed that the police had in fact breached Fearon’s rights, but the evidence against him on his cellphone should not be excluded.
“The police simply did something that they believed on reasonable grounds to be lawful and were proven wrong, after the fact, by developments in the jurisprudence,” Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the majority.
“That is an honest mistake, reasonably made, not state misconduct that requires exclusion of evidence.”
Cromwell said the court was trying to strike a balance between the demands of effective law enforcement and the public’s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“In my view, we can achieve that balance with a rule that permits searches of cellphones incident to arrest, provided that the search – both what is searched and how it is searched – is strictly incidental to the arrest and that the police keep detailed notes of what has been searched and why.”
The ruling laid out detailed criteria to guide police.
The arrest must be lawful, and the search must be “truly incidental to the arrest” and “based on a valid law enforcement purpose,” it said.
The ruling defined valid law enforcement as: protecting the police, accused or the public.
That includes preserving evidence and discovering new evidence, “including locating additional suspects, in situations in which the investigation will be stymied or significantly hampered absent the ability to promptly search the cellphone incident to arrest.”
Moreover, the ruling said a phone can subjected to a warrantless search if the “nature and the extent of the search are tailored to the purpose of the search” if police “take detailed notes of what they examined on the device and how it was searched.”
That lack of proper note-taking was the one flaw the high court identified in Fearon’s arrest, but it said that wasn’t enough to exclude the evidence that was gathered from his phone.
After police arrested Fearon, they found a relevant draft text message that referred to “jewelry” and photographs, including the handgun used the robbery.
“We did it,” the text message read in part.
Police later obtained a search warrant but found nothing more useful on the phone.
The court said the evidence the officers presented in court about the initial search was unsatisfactory. One officer testified that he “had a look through the cellphone” and another said he did “some quick checks” for about two minutes.
Beyond that, the court concluded, the police “were not able to provide many specifics.”
Still, the high court allowed that evidence to stand – upholding Fearon’s conviction – and agreed with the original trial judge’s finding that excluding it would “would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system.”
Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis said police should need a warrant in all cases to search a cellphone.
“The intensely personal and uniquely pervasive sphere of privacy in our personal computers requires protection that is clear, practical and effective,” she wrote.
She added the court’s majority ruling had proposed an “overly complicated template” for police to follow.
“Fundamentally, my colleague’s approach puts the balancing decision in the hands of the police,” Karakatsanis wrote.
“I doubt not that police officers faced with this decision would act in good faith, but I do not think that they are in the best position to determine ‘with great circumspection’ whether the law enforcement objectives clearly outweigh the potentially significant intrusion on privacy in the search of a personal cellphone or computer,” she added.
“If they are wrong, the subsequent exclusion of the evidence will not remedy the initial privacy violation.”