Arun Mishra, J. - (1.)The question of 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'), has been referred to a five-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court.
(2.)A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 3 SCC 183, had delivered a judgment interpreting section 24 of the Act of 2013. In Yogesh Neema & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 6 SCC 387, a two-Judge Bench, doubted the decision of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 3 SCC 353 and referred the matter to a larger Bench.
(3.)Yet in another Civil Appeal No.20982 of 2017 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2131 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors.,2018 SCCOnlineSC 100) the matter was referred to a larger Bench on 7.12.2017. The following observations were made in Indore Development Authority (supra):
"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 not accepting the compensation deliberately and statement are made in the Court that they do not 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.10472/2008 - Yogesh Neema & Ors v. State of M.P. & Ors. vide order dated 12.01.2016. There are several other issues arising which have been mentioned above but have not 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."

;