The supreme court has said while dismissing a plea seeking to overrule a 2020 verdict delivered by a five-judge constitution bench pertaining to the land acquisition Act. It also said that the petition challenging the binding judgment of the apex court under
Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was hearing a plea seeking direction to the Center to reinterpret Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
What does Article 32 of the Constitution say?
It is noteworthy that Article 32 of the Constitution deals with measures for the enforcement of rights.
As per 32(1), the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.
In 2020, the Constitution Bench gave this decision
In its 2020 decision, the Constitution Bench had said that re-hearing the dispute on land acquisition and payment of fair compensation to the owners, fair compensation and transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. cannot be under the authority, if the legal process is completed before 1 January 2014.
Also, the apex court had interpreted Section 24 of the 2013 Act as there were two conflicting judgments on the issue by different benches of the apex court.
Explain that section 24 of the Act deals with those situations. Under which the proceedings of land acquisition will be considered lapsed. The provision states that if no award of compensation has been made in a land acquisition case by January 1, 2014, the provisions of the 2013 Act will apply in determining compensation for land acquisition. The provision also states that if the cut-off date If a
compensation has been declared before 1894, the land acquisition proceedings will continue under the 1894 Act.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made this observation while dismissing a petition which sought to declare that the judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal was not a good law and overrule it and the subsequent judgments which followed it. In that judgment, a Constitution Bench had given an interpretation to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
Smt. Ujjam bai vs. state of Uttar Pradesh ,In this case, the Petitioner was carrying a business of manufacturing of bidis in a various number of States, he was a dealer registered under the UP Sales Tax Act, he filed a Petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution as his Fundamental Right to carry out the business was violated by the state.
Name: ANUSHKA YADAV, BA LLB (2nd) semester. RNB GLOBAL UNIVERSITY, GANGANAGAR ROAD (BIKANER), RAJASTHAN
