1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 938 of 2021 1 - Dilip Singh S/o Chatur Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kirari, Tehsil - Masturi District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan 1, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India (Nhai) Project Implementation Unit D-61, Hig-1, Abhilasha Parisar Behind New Bus Stand Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub- Divisional Officer Cum-Competent Authority Land Acquisition Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Inspector General Registration And Superintendent Of Stamp Gst Bhawan Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pushpanjali Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K.K. Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For respondent/Union of India : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan,Advocate For respondent No.2/NHAI : Ms. Shreya Daga, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to pass similar order in terms of order passed in WPC No. 1961/2018 and REVP No. 10/2019 in the interest of justice and kindly direct the respondents land acquisition officer for recalculating the compensation after applying Multiplying factor 2 and for payment of difference amount. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was the owner of land bearing Survey No.671/7, area 0.398 hectare, situated in Village Kirari, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. The respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings for the construction of National Highways and a notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act was published in the Gazette of India. An award was passed by the competent authority on 28.03.2018. 3. The petitioner in this petition pleaded that the respondent authorities failed to apply the appropriate multiplication factor in accordance with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013"), read with Schedule I. 4. The petitioner further contended that in the final award, the appropriate multiplication factor–2, as notified on 02.05.2019, was not applied. They relied on the judgment in Mahadev Gond v. Union of India, WPC No. 1961/2018, dated 18.07.2018, wherein it was held that multiplication factor–2 shall be applicable in rural areas for the acquisition of land for National Highways. 5. The respondents issued a notification dated 02.05.2019 declaring that multiplication factor–2 would apply to rural areas for land acquisition under the National Highways Act. The petitioner has further stated that a review petition filed in the matter of Mahadev Gond (supra) was 3 disposed of on 24.06.2019, wherein it was reaffirmed that the benefit of the judgment dated 18.07.2018 would continue to apply. The relevant observation is reproduced as under: “The State has brought about an amendment whereby the appropriate multiplier has been fixed as TWO even in respect of acquisition for the State as per the notification dated 02.05.2019. This being the position, there cannot be any change with regard to the benefit/result flowing from the verdict passed by the Bench on 18.07.2018.” 6. The petitioner has pleaded that similar writ petitions have been disposed of in light of the judgment in Mahadev Gond (supra). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities failed to discharge their obligations under Section 26 of the Act, 2013 read with Schedule I. He contended that the appropriate multiplication factor–2 was not applied while passing the final award. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Ultratech Cement v. Mantram, (2025) 1 SCC 798. 8. The relevant paragraphs 39 and 51 of the judgment passed in M/s Ultratech Cement (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow: “39. It is not in dispute that the Supplementary Award had to be passed as the compensation for standing crops, structures and other materials for the subject land was not evaluated under Award No.1 dated 08.06.2018. This was also recorded in the said award. We find that the passing of the Supplementary Award was not a fresh exercise but a continuation or extension of the 2018 award. Therefore, since JAL has already paid the compensation under the earlier award without demur, it cannot now seek to challenge its liability under the Supplementary Award or demand return of land on the ground that the acquisition purpose has failed due to delay. 51. Although the requirement to pass a supplementary award to determine additional 4 compensation for standing crops, trees, damaged structures, houses, etc., was envisaged and recorded in the award dated 08.06.2018, the possession of the subject land was handed over to JAL via a certificate dated 07.06.2019 without passing such a supplementary award. This omission to complete the process before taking possession contravenes the mandate of Section 38(1) of the Act, 2013.” 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition. 10. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for respondent/Union of India argued that the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, was issued on 17.11.2017, and the notification under Section 3D was issued on 01.03.2018. The final award was passed on 28.03.2018. He referred to Section 26 of the Act, 2013, and stated that the market value calculated by the Collector would be multiplied by the factor specified in the First Schedule. He submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh had issued a notification dated 04.12.2014 applying multiplication factor–I. 11. He further submitted that in the matter of Anita Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 1649 of 2017, the notification dated 04.12.2014 was struck down by the Division Bench, and the State was directed to issue an appropriate notification with a correct multiplication factor. 12. He argued that a new notification was issued on 02.05.2019 applying multiplication factor–2 to rural areas for structural loss, but it did not provide for retrospective application. Since the final award was passed on 28.03.2018 under the then-existing notification (dated 04.12.2014) applying factor–I, it was valid and cannot be reopened. 13. With respect to the request for a supplementary award, he submitted that such an award may be passed only where compensation for 5 standing crops, structures, or trees has not been determined. However, the petitioners have not pleaded any such damages in their petitions, and therefore, no supplementary award is warranted. He also placed reliance on the judgment in Shiv Balak Misra v. State of Chhattisgarh, FAM No. 195 of 2018. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. In the present cases, the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, was issued on 17.11.2017; notification under Section 3D was issued on 01.03.2018; and the final award was passed on 28.03.2018. The writ petitions were filed after more than one year, seeking benefit of multiplication factor–2 in the light of the judgment rendered in the matter of Mahadev Gond (supra). 16. In the matter of Shiv Balak Misra (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench in para-8 held as under: “8. The State of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of powers under Section 30(2), issued a notification dated 04.12.2014 fixing Factor–I as the multiplying factor. The said notification was struck down by order dated 30.10.2018 in WPC No. 1649/2017 and connected matters. In review, this Court on 12.12.2019 in Rev.P.No.190/2019 & connected cases clarified that the judgment dated 30.10.2018 would stand intact, except Paragraph 12, which was deleted to apply the judgment prospectively.” 17. The notification dated 04.12.2014 was thus struck down in Mahadev Gond (supra) on 30.10.2018. 18. The notification dated 02.05.2019 issued by the State Government is reproduced as under:- “Be it enacted by the Chhattisgarh Legislature in the Seventieth Year of the Republic of India, as follows:- 6 1.(1) This Act may be called the Chhattisgarh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Determination of Multiplying Factor in case of Rural Areas) Act. 2019. (2) It shall extend to the whole State of Chhattisgarh. (3) It shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2(1) "Rural Areas" means areas other than urban area defined under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959), urban area notifie for this Act from time to time and areas declared as specific area. (2) Words and expressions used herein but not defined shall have the same meaning as assigned to them under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013) and Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959). 3. The Compensation to be given to those whose land is acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to multiplied shall be 2.00. (Two).” 19. In the present case, considering the decision rendered in Mahadev Gond (supra) and the subsequent notification dated 02.05.2019, the doctrine of prospective overruling applies. Since the award dated 28.03.2018 was passed under then the prevailing notification of 04.12.2014, which was only struck down later, the benefits of the judgment rendered in Mahadev Gond (supra) cannot be extended retrospectively to affect this award. 20. With regard to the petitioner’s claim for a supplementary award for damages to standing crops, trees, or structures, there being no specific pleading in writ petition, the existing award cannot be revisited or reviewed. This Court is of the view that on the date of computation 7 of compensation, multiplication factor–I was in force and validly applied; thus, no case is made out for grant of any relief. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha