The Supreme Court recently said that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of the Supreme Court.

"A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of this Court," said a Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala.

AOR Anil Kumar Jha appeared for the Appellant before the Court.

The petitioner sought the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to re-interpret section 24 (2) of the land acquisition Act 2013 and declare that judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. is no longer good law and accordingly the same may be overruled.

A five-judge Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., had overturned all previous judgments on the interpretation of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Constitution Bench had held that the proceedings did not lapse if the compensation tendered was refused by the landowner or a reference was sought for higher compensation.

Also, it said that the ‘or’ in Section 24(2) has to be read as ‘nor’/‘and’. Therefore, implying that if the award has been passed 5 years or more before 01.01.2014, and neither physical possession was taken, nor compensation was paid, the proceedings would lapse. However, even if either of them was done, then the proceedings would be saved.

"We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed," said the Court while refusing to entertain the petition.

Cause Title- Vijaylakshmi Jha v. Union of India

Click here to read/download the Order


CJI DY ChandrachudJustice PS NarasimhaJustice JB Pardiwalaland acquisitionArticle 32

Puneet Deshwal