A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday faulted the procedure adopted by another bench of the same composition to strike down a 2014 judgment of the apex court without following standards of judicial discipline that required the matter to be referred to a larger bench.
The issue relates to land acquisition where a question arose whether a person who refuses to take compensation for his acquired land can revive his claim.
On February 8, 2018, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra by a 2:1 majority held that claimants or landowners after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong and seek protection under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
By saying so, the bench went against a 2014 decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki which too was by a three-judge bench and was the settled law on this subject.
Instead of seeking reconsideration of the 2014 decision, the majority ruling of February 8 decided to itself correct the error by declaring the decision to be per incuriam, which in other words means that the said judgment is bad in law and need not be followed by the lower courts.
On Wednesday, when this fact was brought to the attention of a bench of Justices Madan B lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, the bench was furious as to how sacred traditions of propriety and consistency in following judicial orders had been thrown to winds by the majority decision of February 8 in Indore Development Authority v Shaillendra (Dead).
The bench remarked, “There are certain principles which are considered holy for the running of any institution. If you start tampering with them, there is no end to which you can go,” the bench observed.
Although the February 8 decision brought cheers to state governments, who could now avoid litigation and save on paying fresh compensation claims resulting from claimants who refused to accept it earlier.
Realizing the huge impact of this judgment, the Court on Wednesday directed all High Courts not to deal with the issue pertaining to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and requested other benches of Supreme Court to defer the case hearing till there is a final decision on sending the matter before a larger bench.