5-judge bench being mulled to resolve conflicting verdicts on land acquisition

In order to test the correctness of two conflicting verdicts on land acquisition by its 3-judge benches, the Supreme Court Wednesday said it will consider setting up a 5-judge Constitution Bench on the issue that pertained to cancellation of the land acquired because of compensation dispute. A major controversy came to the fore last year when a three-judge bench, by 2:1 majority, set aside the earlier verdict of 2014 delivered by another bench of the same strength.

In a unanimous verdict in 2014, in the Pune Municipal Corporation case, the bench had held that non-payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition. In 2018, another three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, said that the earlier 2014 verdict was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam).

It held that the land acquisition could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons. It had also held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency.

A huge controversy over alleged "judicial indiscipline" and propriety was raised as to whether a bench of similar strength can nullify the verdict of another bench. The issue was then referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took note of the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the issue required urgent consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench due to the pendency of over 150 such cases of land acquisition. "We will look into it," the bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, had told the law officer.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra (since retired), on March 6, last year, had accorded a brief hearing in the case and had told the parties that it would hear the matter at length later. "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," it had said.

However, the matter then did not come up for hearing. Both the Pune Municipal Corporation and the 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.