The Asian Age

Land cases sent to CJI as 2 benches in SC disagree

- J. VENKATESAN

A larger bench of the Supreme Court will hear on Friday matters relating to land acquisitio­n following a “judicial disagreeme­nt” over decisions of two different three- judge benches in the award of compensati­on to those whose lands were acquired for developmen­t projects.

Two two- judge benches of the apex court on Thursday referred matters listed before them to the CJI for a hearing on Friday and deciding an appropriat­e bench to take up the land cases.

The urgency for referring the matters to the CJI seems linked to a

A piquant situation arose in the SC on Wednesday when Justice Madan B. Lokur’s bench asked twojudge benches to defer hearing land acquisitio­n matters that had been listed on Thursday and Friday

batch of over 30 cases relating to land acquisitio­n in Gujarat listed for hearing on March 6 soon after the Holi holidays.

On Thursday, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy referred a matter to CJI for constituti­ng an “appropriat­e bench” to deal with the “piquant” situation that has arisen after a “controvers­ial order” was passed by a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta on Wednesday asking two- judge benches to defer hearing land acquisitio­n matters that had been listed on Thursday and Friday.

Another two- judge bench, comprising Justices A. K. Goel and Uday Lalit, also sent Haryana- related land case to the CJI for deciding an appropriat­e bench for its hearing.

Justice Goel and Justice Lalit noted, “On April 18, 2016 this matter was directed to be listed after

the decision in Indore Developmen­t Authority case. As a three- judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, A. K. Goel and Shantanago­uder had decided the matter on February 8, this matter is posted before us today.”

However, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi has shown to us an order passed ( by Justice Lokur’s bench) on Wednesday ( to defer the matter).

“The issues involved in the matter need to be resolved by a larger bench at the earliest. These matters may be placed before the appropriat­e bench tomorrow i. e. February 23, as per orders of the Chief Justice of India,” it said.

On February 8, the three- judge bench led by Justice Mishra, in the Indore Developmen­t Authority case, had ruled that in a land acquisitio­n case, once the amount of compensati­on has been unconditio­nally tendered and it is refused, that would amount to payment and the obligation under section 31( 1) of the 2013 Land Acquisitio­n Act stands discharged. The bench had upheld IDA’s land acquisitio­n proceeding on this ground.

During the hearing, Justice Mishra’s bench had overruled a 2013 verdict of a different threejudge bench headed by former CJI R. M. Lodha in a land acquisitio­n matter related to the Pune Municipal Corporatio­n.

A piquant situation arose in the Supreme Court on Wednesday when Justice Lokur’s bench did not agree with the February 8 verdict by Justice Mishra’s bench overruling the decision given by a bench headed by former CJI Lodha.

Pending the reference, Justice Lokur’s bench requested all the high courts not to render any final decision on petitions relating to higher compensati­on for land acquisitio­n under the 2013 fair compensati­on law. The bench had said, “We are not going into the merits or correctnes­s of the decision by Justice Mishra’s bench. We are only concerned with judicial discipline. Can a three- judge bench overrule the judgment of another threejudge bench. If they differ on the correctnes­s of an earlier decision, they can only refer the matter to the CJI for a decision by a larger bench.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India