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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Tra...

Join the Discussion on the App

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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?

a)
Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five years
b)
Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 years
c)
The landowners refused to take the compensation amount
d)
None of the above

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 19

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Since the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisi...

The law in place aids the owners of land to get a fair compensation. In order to raise the issue of unfair compensation after the enforcement of the contract, the land owners have two resources. Firstly, the claim could be made that the possession of the land was not acquired for five years; secondly, if the owner was not compensated at all. One of the two could bolster the stance of the land owners.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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 East”. 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 in the year 2012 by the Developers and in 2015, they commenced the construction activity. In context of the 2014 judgment of the apex court which of the following would be true?

View answer

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"

View answer

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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 3”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The clauses in the agreement offered a fair and adequate compensation to the farmers, but it was refused by the farmers on pretext of the sum being insubstantial. The land was taken in possession by the developers in the year 2012. In light of the 2018 judgment of the apex court, determine which of the following would be an appropriate stance?

View answer

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. Which among the following was the part of ruling of the Supreme Court judgment in the year 2014?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Anita is a child of 8 years. One day while she was playing on the roads a Brahmin Pandit kidnapped her and took her to an abandoned temple and raped her. When she was found out after 2 days she was senseless due to excessive bleeding and was grievously hurt. Who can claim compensation for Anita?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. Prabhavati Developers wishes to develop a residential complex named “Prabhavati Lotus 2”. In order to materialize this objective, the entity purchased land from the farmers in the area in 2008. The farmers were duly and adequately compensated in accordance with the market price. The possession of the land was acquired by the Developers in the year 2013 and the construction activity was initiated in the year 2015. However, the farmers raised the issue of unfair compensation for their land, and wish to file a petition regarding this. Which among the following would strengthen the case of the farmers?a)Prabhavati Developers did not take the possession of land for five yearsb)Prabhavati developers did not initiate the construction on the acquired land within 5 yearsc)The landowners refused to take the compensation amountd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam