1 2026:CGHC:12586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3400 of 2023 RESERVED ON 28-2-2026 DELIVERED ON 17-3-2026 Dharmesh Patel S/o Late Sanpat Patel, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Village Sahaspur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattsgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer -In Chief, Water Resources Department, Sector- 19, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer, Maniyari Water Resources Division, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For petitioner Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Adv. For Respondent/State Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi CAV Order 1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard the matter finally. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.19 17:37:28 +0530 2 Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent to include component multiplication factor TWO applicable in rural areas as per Aapasi Sahmati Se Bhumi Kray Niti 2016 R/W Gazette Notification dated 25.11.2019 and determine the compensation as per the gazette notification dated 25.11.2019 and disburse the compensation as per the gazette notification dated 25.11.2019. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 3. Facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that, the petitioner’s family was recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 229/4 and Khasra No. 53/5, total area about 0.40 acre situated at village Sahaspur, District Mungeli (CG). That land was acquired by the respondents under the Aapasi Sahmati Se Bhumi Kray Niti, 2016 (Annexue P-2)(henceforth referred to as ‘the Scheme of 2016’). At the time of purchase of said land, it was assured that under the Scheme of 2016, father of the petitioner would be granted benefit of multiplier factor of ‘2’ for the acquisition of his land situated in rural area, therefore, father of the petitioner consented to the acquisition of his land under the bonafide belief that he would be granted the benefit of multiplier factor of ‘2’. The State Government published notification in the official gazette on 25-11-2019 declaring therein that, the land owner 3 of the land is entitled to multiplication factor of ‘2’ on the value of the land as per prevailing guideline. The family member of the petitioner i.e. late brother submitted a representation and requested the respondent authorities to grant benefit of multiplier factor ‘2’ as per aforesaid notification, but the same has not been granted, therefore, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned in para 2 of this order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, subject land was purchased under the Scheme 2016 for construction of main canal under the Sahaspur Diversion Scheme from father of the petitioner vide award Annexure P-3 dated 18-1-2018. That time, total amount of compensation Rs. 5,16,000/- was paid to the petitioner’s family as per the prevailing Scheme of 2016, but no multiplier factor ‘2’ was applied. Subsequently, vide memo dated 30-10-2019, sub-clause 4 of Clause 2 was substituted by sub-clause 4(एक) and sub-clause 4(दो). By this notification, in sub-clause 4(दो), it was provided that, the private land of land holders of rural areas shall be purchased by giving them as consideration an amount equal to two times the value of the land and the value of the immovable assets situated on the land, calculated as per the then effective rate of the guidelines issued by the Collector on the date of purchase. Subsequently again, vide notification dated 25- 11-2019, sub-clause 4 (दो) of Clause 2 of the Scheme of 2016 was amended and multiplier of ‘2’ on the value of the land as per the then prevailing rate, was kept as it is, but multiplier of ‘2’ to be calculated on the value of immovable assets situated on the land was amended and the amount equal to the value of immovable asset situated on the land 4 was provided to be given. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid changes, would submit that, aforesaid amendments are explanatory, clarificatory and declaratory in nature and brought to fulfill the lacuna in the Scheme of 2016, therefore, he submits that, though the father of the petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation, but only because of that, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the subsequent modification pertaining to the factor/multiplier made by the State Government in favour of farmers. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of UP and ors. [(2024) 5 SCC 217], the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Dass [(2019) 15 SCC 554] and Daivshala & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534]. 5. State has filed its reply stating inter alia that, the proposal (Annexure R-1-6/1) to purchase the land was accepted by father of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Scheme of 2016 and after complying the due process, the award Annexue (R-1-6/2) dated 18-1-2018 was passed by the respondent No. 6. The amount of compensation for the said land was calculated to be 5,16,000/- in favour of father of the petitioner and others, which was received by him and other farmers. 5.1 Learned State Counsel referring to its reply would further submit that, since the land has been purchased with the consent of father of the petitioner, therefore, it is binding upon the petitioner and he cannot take contrary stand subsequently. Further, the project has already been completed and the expenses have been incurred by the department. Thus, since, the transaction has already been completed, 5 therefore, it cannot be reopened . He also submits that, in that view of the matter, subsequent gazette notification dated 25-11-2019 is not applicable in the case of petitioner, as it was not in existence at the fateful time of purchase of subject land. He further submits that, petitioner’s father late Sanpat Patel has never raised any objection during his lifetime with regard to the compensation amount, therefore, the petitioner has no right to reopen the same, which has already attained finality. Hence, he prays that, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the subject land was purchased under the Scheme of 2016, for construction of main canal under the Sahaspur Diversion Scheme, thereafter, the award was passed on 18-1-2018 and compensation amount Rs. 5,16,000/- has also been received by the father of the petitioner. Thus, transaction has already completed. At the time of purchase of subject land, Clause 2(4) of the Scheme of 2016 was as under :- “भू- धारक की न⠿जी भून⠿ ्䵅य न⠿कए जाे के न⠿दांक को कलेकᕍटर ्䵛ारा जारी की गई गाईड लाई की तत⑍सय ्䵚भावशील दर के अुसार संगण⌿$त भून⠿ के ूल㉍य और भून⠿ पर ቝ嶌)*त )*ावर पर〿रसंपቈ䢌-यो䬂 के ूल㉍य के बराबर राण⌿श ्䵚त␿तफल (consideration) के रあप े䜂 देकर ्䵅य की जाएगी ।" 8. Vide amendment dated 30-10-2019, in place of aforesaid Clause 2(4), following was substituted :- “4 [(एक) गरीय ्䵌े्䵔 े䜂 भू- धारक की न⠿जी भून⠿ ्䵅य न⠿कये जाे के न⠿दांक को 6 कलेकᕍटर ्䵛ारा जारी की गई गाईड लाई की तत⑍सय ्䵚भावशील दर के अुसार संगण⌿$त भून⠿ के ूल㉍य और भून⠿ पर ቝ嶌)*त )*ावर पर〿रसंपቈ䢌-यो䬂 के ूल㉍य के बराबर राण⌿श ्䵚त␿तफल (Consideration) के रあप े䜂 देकर ्䵅य की जाएगी। (दो) ्䵇ाी$ ्䵌े्䵔 े䜂 भू- धारक की न⠿जी भून⠿ ्䵅य न⠿कये जाे के न⠿दांक को कलेकᕍटर ्䵛ारा जारी की गई गाईड लाई की तत⑍सय ्䵚भावशील दर के अुसार संगण⌿$त भून⠿ के ूल㉍य और भून⠿ पर ቝ嶌)*त )*ावर पर〿रसंपቈ䢌-यो䬂 के ूल㉍य के दो गु$ा के बराबर राण⌿श ्䵚त␿तफल (Consideration) के रあप े䜂 देकर ्䵅य की जाएगी।" 9. Again vide gazette notification dated 25-11-2019, in place of aforesaid sub-clause 4(दो), following sub-clause 4(दो) was substituted :- “4.(दो) ्䵇ाी$ ्䵌े्䵔 े䜂 भू-धारक की न⠿जी भून⠿ ्䵅य न⠿कये जाे के न⠿दांक को कलेकᕍटर ्䵛ारा जारी की गई गाईड लाई की तत⑍सय ्䵚भावशील दर के अुसार संगण⌿$त भून⠿ के ूल㉍य के दो गु$ा और उस भून⠿ पर ቝ嶌)*त )*ावर पर〿रसंपቈ䢌-यो䬂 के ूल㉍य के बराबर राण⌿श ्䵚त␿तफल (Consideration) के रあप े䜂 देकर ्䵅य की जाएगी।" 10. Perusal of aforesaid amendment shows that, earlier while giving consideration against the value of the land, only the then value of the guideline issued by the Collector was to be taken, subsequently, vide amendment dated 30-10-2019, multiplier of ‘2’ was provided for calculation of compensation at the value of the land as per the prevailing guideline and at the value of immovable assets on it. Thereafter, multiplier of ‘2’ on the value of the land was kept as it is in partial amendment dated 25-11-2019, so far as it relates for calculation of compensation against the value of the land, but multiplier of ‘2’ was not provided on the value of the immovable asset on the land. 11. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that multiplier factor was not applied in respect of value of the land which was subsequently added vide amendment of the year 2019 to fill up the 7 lacuna of the Scheme of 2016, therefore, aforesaid amendment was also applicable to the case of the petitioner, as that amendment is explanatory, clarificatory and declaratory in nature. 12. Therefore, the legal question now emerges, is that, whether aforesaid amendment/substitution would have retrospective effect. 13. Similar issue came up for consideration before Supreme Court in State of Manipur Versus Surajkumar Okram (2022 SCC OnLine SC 130) wherein the issue relating to the exercise of powers by the Court to save past transactions was elaborately discussed. Relevant paras of the judgmnt are quoted below: "32. Elaborating on the point relating to the past exercise of powers by the Court to save transactions, it is necessary to refer to the law laid down by this Court. Following the American jurisprudence, the doctrine of prospective overruling was applied in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762 this Court held that the power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution of India did not allow the Parliament to abridge the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Realising that there would be confusion and chaos if the judgment is given retrospective effect, this Court evolved a "reasonable principle to meet this extraordinary situation". 33. The following propositions were laid down by this Court in Golak Nath (supra): (1) The doctrine of prospective over-ruling can be invoked only in matters arising under our Constitution; (2) It can be applied only by the highest court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court as it has the constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the courts in India; 8 (3) the scope of the retroactive operation of the law declared by the Supreme Court superseding its earlier decisions is left to its discretion to be moulded in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it." Though Golak Nath (supra) applied the doctrine of prospective overruling in the context of earlier decisions of this Court on the same issues which had otherwise become final, the doctrine of prospective overruling has been applied by this Court even where the issue was being decided by the Court for the first time. 39. The principles that can be deduced from the law laid down by this Court, as referred to above, are: 39.1. statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. 39.2. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. 39.3. In declaration of the law, the doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional. 39.4. Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional.” 14. In the instant case, as has been stated in opening paragraph that, under the said Scheme, proposal of purchase of land (Annexure R-1- 6/1) was accepted by father of the petitioner vide Annexure R-1-6/3 and the compensation calculated in his favour i.e. Rs. 5,16,000/-, according to the State counsel, has been accepted by him without any protest, 9 thus, the transaction has completed. Therefore, having considered the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, subsequent amendment/substitution in Clause 2-4(दो) in the year 2019 is not found to be applicable in the instant case, as the issue would be covered by the doctrine of prospective overruling inasmuch as the date on which, the determination of compensation was taken into account, aforesaid amendments were not in existence and compensation was calculated as per the prevailing Scheme of 2016. 15. Further, there is no provision in said amendment/substitution that it will carry retrospective effect and there was no provision of multiplier in the Scheme of 2016, rather vide amendment / substitution of the year 2019, new provision for multiplier was introduced hence, this court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that, said amendments / substitution are of the nature of explanatory and clarificatory. 16. Though in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma and other connected cases (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held negative to the question as to “whether the appellants, by signing the agreement, have waved their right to seek revised compensation,” but in that case, in the meeting of High Level Committee, it was recommended to grant additional compensation and exgratia payment to land holders/land oustees and the case in hand is not a case of grant of any additional compensation or exgratia payment to be paid to the land oustees, rather, a new method of calculation was added vide amendments of the year 2019, by that time, father of petitioner had already received amount of compensation without any protest and he did not agitate for 10 the same in his lifetime. In that view of the matter, other case laws of Ram Kishan Dass (supra) and Daivshala & Ors. (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are also not helpful to the petitioner in the instant case. 17. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that, since on the date when compensation was calculated as per the prevailing Scheme of 2016 as per the method mentioned in it, which was also accepted by father of the petitioner without any protest, as such, transaction has already completed, therefore, subsequent amendment made in the year 2019 applying multiplier factor ‘2’ is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow this writ petition. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak