October 2, 2001, Chandigarh, India
PAU develops machine for maize threshing
Ludhiana, October 1
The machine known as high capacity maize thresher for dehusked maize cobs, can provide 20 to 25 quintals of clean grains per hour if used with a 25 to 35 HP tractor.
The machine is a better developed and modified version of Sunflower thresher and has been developed by Mr Jaskaran Singh. The machine was put on a demonstration at a village near here where the display of zero-till drill and strip-till drill for direct sowing of wheat, garlic planter and other hand tools were also displayed.
Dr J.S. Kolar, Director of Extension Education, PAU, while presiding over the function stressed the need for diversifying from wheat-paddy rotation to alternative cropping systems. He pointed out that the godowns were already overflowing with wheat and paddy stocks and there was little demand due to availability of fresh stocks at lower prices from WTO countries.
He also said that cultivation of paddy had not only disturbed the ecological balances over the years but had also depleted the underground watertable. Burning of paddy straw not only causes potassium deficiency but also reduces other minor elements in the soil. The animal health has already shown deterioration due to deficiency of these micronutrients and stress was also being felt on human beings. He said the paddy straw can be gainfully utilised in making bio-manure with the help of cow dung.
Dr Jang Bahadur Singh, Executive Member of the SGPC, who was the chief guest on this occasion, lauded the role of the PAU in promoting suitable technologies for development of the state. He exhorted the farmers to take the advice of the PAU experts so that the state could meet the challenges of the WTO onslaught.
Dr S.S. Sokhi, Additional Director of Extension Education, also spoke on the occasion. Dr I.K.Garg, Head of the department, of Farm Power and Machinery, delivered the technical advice to the farmers.
Valedictory function of bridge training course Ludhiana, October 1 Speaking on the occasion, the director, Dr E.M. Johnson, congratulated the teachers and instructors, who had come from all parts of India, for successfully completing the course. The chief guest, Mr Gurdeep Singh Brar, Director, Social Welfare Officer, gave away the certificates to the candidates. Some of the participants of the course were visually challenged and had come from distant places. Mr Brar said, “Dr E.M. Johnson has done an amazing work for the visually impaired and physically handicapped for the past three decades. In fact, he has taken quite a load off the government by setting up out-reach programmes to help impaired in Sangrur, Ropar and other districts of Punjab. We must all contribute to make the society a better place to live in.”
Ludhiana, October 1
Speaking on the occasion, the director, Dr E.M. Johnson, congratulated the teachers and instructors, who had come from all parts of India, for successfully completing the course.
The chief guest, Mr Gurdeep Singh Brar, Director, Social Welfare Officer, gave away the certificates to the candidates. Some of the participants of the course were visually challenged and had come from distant places. Mr Brar said, “Dr E.M. Johnson has done an amazing work for the visually impaired and physically handicapped for the past three decades. In fact, he has taken quite a load off the government by setting up out-reach programmes to help impaired in Sangrur, Ropar and other districts of Punjab. We must all contribute to make the society a better place to live in.”
Forum rejects Improvement Trust’s plea
Ludhiana, October 1
According to the complaint, the consumer had purchased plot No 445-E measuring 150 square yards in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar under a scheme of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Mr Jagdev Singh stated before the forum that the sale deed was executed in his favour on November 28, 1994, and the deed was executed after the receipt of the dues by the trust.
Mr Singh disclosed that he had got the construction plan sanctioned, but the construction could only be started after taking possession of the plot. The consumer requested the trust officials for giving possession of the plot after its demarcation so that he might raise construction, he added.
It was alleged by him that despite giving reminder to give possession of the plot on December 5, 1994, the trust did not give possession. After that he had even requested the Deputy Commissioner, vide letter dated June 30, 1997, and July 18, 1997, to intervene in the matter and to direct the trust to give the possession of the plot.
The consumer received a notice on February 23, 1999, mentioning that he should explain reasons for not raising any construction on the plot. It was also mentioned that in case he failed to give his explanation within 15 days, the plot would be resumed.
The consumer wrote a reply to the trust on March 6, 1999, that since the possession had not been delivered, he could not raise the construction and made a request to give the possession of the plot. He alleged that despite making a request, he was not given the possession of the plot.
He disclosed that he deposited Rs 35,970 on account of non-construction charges for the period from 1995 to 1999 under threat of resumption of the plot. He alleged that even after depositing the non-construction charges, the possession of the plot was not given to him. He was called upon by the respondent on May 13, 1998, to get the demarcation on any working day and after many efforts in the last week of May, 1999, the possession of the plot was delivered to him.
The Improvement Trust pleaded that there was no deficiency in services as the complainant had got the site plan sanctioned which meant that the possession of the plot was delivered to him. The respondent denied that no letters on November 29, 1994, and December 5, 1994, were received by the trust regarding possession of the plot.
The forum observed that despite many requests, the possession or demarcation of the plot had not been given to consumer. Moreover, according to the letter issued to him, the construction could not be raised on the plot without getting the demarcation. The forum held that the respondent was not justified in claiming the non-construction charges and directed to refund the same recovered from the consumer along with interest.
|| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial |
| Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune
50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations |
| 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |