IMPORTANT POINTS
Rendering a decision on any issue of law and the corrective procedure of it is not a ground for recusal of a Judge.
Request for recusal of a Judge on ground of legal predisposition amounts to forum shopping or Bench hunting.
Merely having a legal opinion has no connection with impartiality.
The very idea of seeking recusal is inconceivable and wholly unjustified.
Decision to recuse is that of the Judge concerned, and unjustified pressure should never be allowed.

ORDER

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 five­Judge Constitution Bench of this Court.

2. A three­Judge 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 two­Judge 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 SCC Online SC 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.”

4. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. (supra), the bench consisting of one of us, namely, Arun Mishra, J., Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. has decided the matter, and the view taken is that in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the Court did not consider several aspects as to the interpretation of section 24 of the Act of 2013. The decision mentioned above was accepted unanimously by the three Judges. However, as Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was a judgment by a bench of coordinate strength, two of us, namely, myself and Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. opined that decision is per incuriam. However, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. opined that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. In the majority opinion in Indore Development Authority (supra), the questions formulated have been answered thus:

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

Q. No. I:­ 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 acquisi