NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned that if judicial self-discipline and propriety were not maintained, then the institution will "go forever", because it just about stayed the operation of its personal verdict of February 8 in terms of land acquisition.
A best courtroom bench of Justices MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, was essential of the February 8 verdict handed by means of any other three-judge bench protecting that reimbursement now not availed inside of a stipulated 5 yr period would now not be a flooring for cancellation of land acquisition.
The bench stated in all probability there were a tinkering with judicial self-discipline in arriving at a conclusion as the problem should had been to referred to a bigger bench in case of distinction of opinion, as a 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of reimbursement could be a flooring to cancel the land acquisition.
"The system exists but if you start tinkering with it then it won't stop. This institution will go forever. There has to be wisdom and a proper method has to be followed. Every institution works on particular methodology," the bench stated.
On February 8, a three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and MM Shantanagoudar had held that that once the reimbursement amount for land obtained by means of a government company has been unconditionally tendered however the land proprietor refuses it, this may amount to fee and discharge of obligation on part of the company.
The courtroom had additionally held then that it'll now not be open to the individual, who has refused the reimbursement, to lift the purpose that because the amount has now not been deposited in courtroom or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.
It had stated, "the claimants/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" to reclaim land on the flooring that they were not paid reimbursement inside of 5 years.
In a 2:1 majority view, the bench had then held the 2014 verdict within the Pune Municipal Corporation case was handed with out due regard to the regulation (as in keeping with incuriam) and stated that the land obtained may now not be quashed due to lengthen on part of land homeowners in accepting reimbursement inside of 5 years due to litigation or different causes.
Today, Justice Joseph seen it was his "painful concern" that "if this court is to remain as one, it should be one and you have to make it one. You have to have proper judicial discipline for that".
"Be very clear, this is a matter of judicial discipline, judicial propriety and consistency. Can a three judge bench over rule a three judge bench verdict?. It has to be referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion," Justice Joseph stated.
He stated that "correctness of judgment can be doubted but the bench of similar strength of judges cannot 'hold' that the judgment rendered by the earlier one was wrong. Such a system works on hierarchy and it needs to be preserved".
The bench requested that the issues associated with land acquisition listed before the two choose bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy should be deferred until the case before it's decided as whether or not the larger bench should pay attention the problem.
It additionally restrained all top courts from entertaining or passing any order on land acquisition issues on the foundation of February 8 verdict and listed the subject for additional hearing on March 7.
Incidentally, the 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by means of former Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justices Kurian Joseph and MB Lokur, protecting that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".
It had then held that "Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid".
At the outset, senior suggest Mukul Rohatgi stated that due to the recent verdict, a two choose bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy has been pushing aside the instances within the wake of verdict.
"Yesterday, 60 cases were disposed of. On February 16, some cases were disposed. Then on February 19, some cases were dismissed in the wake of verdict. Due to retirement of one of the judges, urgency is shown by the bench and is not ready to defer the matter," he stated.
Rohatgi additional stated, "when one of the judge has differed on the point of holding the 2014 verdict as per incuriam, then this matter should be have been referred to a larger bench. That's the judicial discipline adopted by apex court."
He stated that the operation of February 8 verdict needs to be in an instant be stopped and the instances listed before the bench needs to be deferred until the subject is in any case adjudicated on the factor of connection with a bigger bench.
Rohatgi who was essential of the verdict, stated that the view of three-judge bench will open the flood gates in apex courtroom and this courtroom as the instances which were decided according to 2014, verdict, will now be sought to be reviewed.
A best courtroom bench of Justices MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, was essential of the February 8 verdict handed by means of any other three-judge bench protecting that reimbursement now not availed inside of a stipulated 5 yr period would now not be a flooring for cancellation of land acquisition.
The bench stated in all probability there were a tinkering with judicial self-discipline in arriving at a conclusion as the problem should had been to referred to a bigger bench in case of distinction of opinion, as a 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of reimbursement could be a flooring to cancel the land acquisition.
"The system exists but if you start tinkering with it then it won't stop. This institution will go forever. There has to be wisdom and a proper method has to be followed. Every institution works on particular methodology," the bench stated.
On February 8, a three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and MM Shantanagoudar had held that that once the reimbursement amount for land obtained by means of a government company has been unconditionally tendered however the land proprietor refuses it, this may amount to fee and discharge of obligation on part of the company.
The courtroom had additionally held then that it'll now not be open to the individual, who has refused the reimbursement, to lift the purpose that because the amount has now not been deposited in courtroom or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.
It had stated, "the claimants/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" to reclaim land on the flooring that they were not paid reimbursement inside of 5 years.
In a 2:1 majority view, the bench had then held the 2014 verdict within the Pune Municipal Corporation case was handed with out due regard to the regulation (as in keeping with incuriam) and stated that the land obtained may now not be quashed due to lengthen on part of land homeowners in accepting reimbursement inside of 5 years due to litigation or different causes.
Today, Justice Joseph seen it was his "painful concern" that "if this court is to remain as one, it should be one and you have to make it one. You have to have proper judicial discipline for that".
"Be very clear, this is a matter of judicial discipline, judicial propriety and consistency. Can a three judge bench over rule a three judge bench verdict?. It has to be referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion," Justice Joseph stated.
He stated that "correctness of judgment can be doubted but the bench of similar strength of judges cannot 'hold' that the judgment rendered by the earlier one was wrong. Such a system works on hierarchy and it needs to be preserved".
The bench requested that the issues associated with land acquisition listed before the two choose bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy should be deferred until the case before it's decided as whether or not the larger bench should pay attention the problem.
It additionally restrained all top courts from entertaining or passing any order on land acquisition issues on the foundation of February 8 verdict and listed the subject for additional hearing on March 7.
Incidentally, the 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by means of former Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justices Kurian Joseph and MB Lokur, protecting that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".
It had then held that "Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid".
At the outset, senior suggest Mukul Rohatgi stated that due to the recent verdict, a two choose bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy has been pushing aside the instances within the wake of verdict.
"Yesterday, 60 cases were disposed of. On February 16, some cases were disposed. Then on February 19, some cases were dismissed in the wake of verdict. Due to retirement of one of the judges, urgency is shown by the bench and is not ready to defer the matter," he stated.
Rohatgi additional stated, "when one of the judge has differed on the point of holding the 2014 verdict as per incuriam, then this matter should be have been referred to a larger bench. That's the judicial discipline adopted by apex court."
He stated that the operation of February 8 verdict needs to be in an instant be stopped and the instances listed before the bench needs to be deferred until the subject is in any case adjudicated on the factor of connection with a bigger bench.
Rohatgi who was essential of the verdict, stated that the view of three-judge bench will open the flood gates in apex courtroom and this courtroom as the instances which were decided according to 2014, verdict, will now be sought to be reviewed.
If judicial discipline not maintained, institution will 'go forever': SC
![If judicial discipline not maintained, institution will 'go forever': SC]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
February 22, 2018
Rating:
