LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MANOHARLAL ETC.

Decided On March 06, 2020
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
Manoharlal And Ors. etc. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correct interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013'), is the subject matter of reference to this five Judge Bench of this Court.

(2.) A three Judge Bench of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183, interpreted Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The order reported as Yogesh Neema and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 387, a two-judge Bench, however doubted the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 (which had followed Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and also held that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted by any court) and referred the issue to a larger Bench. Later, in another appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2131 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. and Ors. 2018 SCC Online SC 100) the matter was referred to a larger Bench on 7.12.2017; the Court noticed that:

(3.) The Court noticed that the reference to a larger Bench was pending, and had been made in Yogesh Neema (supra). The Court also felt that several other issues arose which it outlined, but were not considered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). The Court therefore, stated that the matter should be considered by a larger Bench and referred the case to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (hereafter, 'IDA v. Shailendra') a Bench of three Judges was of the view that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) did not consider several aspects relating to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Since Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was a judgment by a Bench of coordinate strength, two learned judges in IDA v. Shailendra opined prima facie that decision appeared to be per incuriam.