A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking his recusal from a case on compensation in the Land Acquisition Act after demands by petitioners as he is heading a bench which has to re-examine his own past verdict.

The five-judge bench headed by Justice Mishra is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of provisions related to compensation in the Land Acquisition Act. The other judges on the bench are Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Sharan, MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat. “I am not recusing from hearing this matter,” Justice Mishra said.

Sighting judicial propriety some farmer associations and individuals have registered an objection over Justice Mishra hearing the matter, and sought his recusal.

Last week, Justice Mishra in a rebuttal to social media posts and articles suggesting his recusal from the case said that the social media posts and articles were not just against a particular judge but an attempt to malign the institution, NDTV quoted Justice Mishra as saying.

Earlier, the apex court had given an observation that attempts have been made to recuse Justice Arun Mishra from the bench hearing pleas linked to compensation in the Land Acquisition Act case is a practice of “bench hunting which, if allowed, would destroy the institution”.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan representing the petitioners told the bench that it must look into the verdict that Justice Mishra wrote and that in his over 100-page verdict, Justice Mishra has opined that the view taken by another bench was bad under the law. He added that a judge cannot sit over appeal of his own past verdict.

Earlier, in February last year, Justice Mishra was part of the verdict which held that acquisition of the land by a government agency cannot be overturned, if there was delay by land owners who fail to accept compensation within five years, citing pending court cases. In 2014, another verdict had ruled that land acquisition can be overturned if there is delay in accepting the compensation awarded against the acquisition.

In March 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that a larger bench would look into the verdicts.

(With inputs from IANS)