Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
CO-PRESENTED BY
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
272
nda:
Needmore seats to Win
Needmore seats to Win
upa:
»
4-min read

CJI-led Constitution Bench to Test Correctness of Two 3-judge Verdicts on Land Acquisition

The top court said that it was of a "prima facie view" that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench 'per incuriam' (without due regard to the law).

PTI

Updated:March 6, 2018, 9:33 PM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
CJI-led Constitution Bench to Test Correctness of Two 3-judge Verdicts on Land Acquisition
File photo of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy.

The top court said that it was of a "prima facie view" that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench 'per incuriam' (without due regard to the law).

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC.

"We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8)," the bench said.

The bench also comprising justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, "We are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect."

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014.

Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam.

On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an "appropriate bench" to deal with the "piquant" situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict.

It had said "We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was 'per incuriam' and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it."

A three-judge bench headed by Justice MB Lokur on February 21, had observed that if "judicial discipline" and propriety were not maintained, the institution will "go forever" while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition.

It had said that perhaps there have been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition.

In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of land owners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons.

It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the land owner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency.

The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.

The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".
(Get detailed and live results of each and every seat in the Lok Sabha elections and state Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim to know which candidate/party is leading or trailing and to know who has won and who has lost and by what margin. Our one-of-its-kind Election Analytics Centre lets you don a psephologist’s hat and turn into an election expert. Know interesting facts and trivia about the elections and see our informative graphics. Elections = News18)
Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
 
 

Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results