ORDER :

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) 3 SCC 183, had delivered a judgment interpreting Sections 24(1) & (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) 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 C.A.No.20982 of 2017 @ SLP(C)No.2131 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. & 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 not accepting the compensation deliberately and statements 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. 10742 of 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."

4. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 100, a three-Judge Bench dealt with the reference. The majority concluded thus:

"228. Our answers to the questions are as follows:

Q.No.1:- The word `paid' in section 24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as `tender of payment' in section 31(1) of the Act of 1894. They carry the same meaning and the expression `deposited' in section 31(2) is not included in the expressions `paid' in section 24 of the Act of 2013 or in `tender of payment' used in section 31(1) of the Act of 1894. The words `paid'/tender' and `deposited' are different expressions and carry different meanings within their fold.

In section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 in the expression `paid', it is not necessary that the amount should be deposited in court as provided in section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. Non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 does not result in a lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Due to the failure of deposit in court, the only consequence at the most in appropriate cases may be of a higher rate of interest on compensation as envisaged under section 34 of the Act of 1894 and not lapse of acquisition.

Once the amount of compensation has been unconditionally tendered and it is refused, that would amount to payment and the obligation under section 31(1) stands discharged and that amounts to discharge of obligation of payment under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 also and it is not open to the person who has refused to accept compensation, to urge that since it has not been deposited in court, acquisition has lapsed. Claimants/landowners after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong and seek protection under t