Question Description
Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LAAR) came into force in 2013, Section 24(2) of the Act has been mired in controversy. Section 24(2) states that in case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer fails to take possession of land acquired under the old laws for five years, or if compensation is not paid to the owner, the land acquisition process would lapse. The process would then have to be re-initiated under LAAR, which would allow the owner to get better compensation.In 2014, a three-judge bench of the apex court held that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, which were initiated five years before the 2013 law was enacted, would lapse if the land in question was not taken control of, or if compensation was not paid to the land-owners. However, in 2018, another three-judge bench declared the previous judgment per incuriam. This happens when a judgment does not follow a statutory provision or a binding precedent that may have been relevant. In such scenarios, a judgment can be declared to be without any legal force and hence not treated as a valid precedent. The fresh judgment held that if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered by the developer, they cannot take advantage of their own wrongdoing and have the acquisition proceedings lapse under the old law. This came as a relief for developers.Days after the 2018 judgment, another three-judge bench stayed the operation of the 2018 judgment and directed the high courts across the country to not decide any case on the basis of the new ruling, and requested apex court judges to defer hearing and not pass any orders in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. This bench essentially took objection to the 2018 three-judge bench overruling a precedent laid down by a coordinate bench, because in common law, judgments by larger benches or those with equal number of judges are binding on other benches. Hence, a three-judge bench cannot override the judgment of another three-judge bench. It can only record its difference of opinion and request for the case to be considered by a larger bench, to set a binding precedent.The controversy now revolves around Justice Arun Mishra heading the five-judge Constitution bench that would settle the precedent, since he was part of the 2018 bench that overruled the 2014 judgment. Since the announcement, two farmer associations have already written to the CJI, objecting to Justice Mishra hearing the matter, despite him having already expressed his opinion in the 2018 judgment. In their letters, the All India Farmer Association and the Delhi Gramin Samaj have highlighted the fact that Justice Mishra would have a conflict of interest in deciding the case.Q. "Prestige Developers wish to develop a residential colony named “Song of the South”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2009. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. However, the possession of the land was taken by the Developers in 2015, when they simultaneously commenced the construction activity. In context of the passage, and the relevant provision of law, which among the following holds true? 1. Land acquisition process would lapse 2. The developers would not be able to get the paid compensation back 3. The process of land acquisition has to be reinitiated"a)1 and 2b)2 and 3c)1 and 3d)1, 2 and 3Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.