INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ETC. & ANR. Vs. SHYAM VERMA AND ORS. ETC. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indore Development Authority And Etc. And Anr.
Shyam Verma And Ors. Etc. And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Mr.Shyam Divan, Mr.C.U.Singh, Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain and Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
(2.)A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 880 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 542 : (2014) 3 SCC 183, had delivered a judgment interpreting Sections 24(1) and (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, 'the 2013 Act').
(3.)In Yogesh Neema and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 6 SCC 387, a two-Judge Bench doubting the decision rendered in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 263 : 2014(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 673 : (2015) 3 SCC 353, referred the matter to a larger Bench. When the matter stood thus, a two-Judge Bench vide order dated 07.12.2017 in 2018(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 455 : C.A. No. 20982 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 2131 of 2016 (Indore Develpment Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors.) thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The order passed in that regard reads as follows:
"19. It was also urged that this Court is also bound to prevent the abuse of process of law. The cases which have been concluded are being revived. In spite of accepting the compensation deliberately and statements are made in the court that they do want to receive the compensation at any cost and they are agitating the matter time and again after having lost the matters and when proceedings are kept pending by interim orders by filing successive petitions, the provisions of section 24 cannot be invoked by such landowners.
20. There is already a reference made as to the applicability of section 24 in SLP(C) No.10742/2008 - Yogesh Neema and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. vide order dated 12.01.2016. There are several other issues arising which have been mentioned above but have been considered in Pune Municipal Corpn.(supra). Thus, here is a case where the matter should be considered by a larger Bench. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.