Chattisgarh High Court
Kalaram Yadav vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3972 of 2021
1 - Kalaram Yadav S/o Ramkhilawan Yadav Aged About 51 Years Owner Of Land
Bearing Khasra No., (1124/1 Village Jairamnagar) R/o Village Jairamnagar (Khaira)
Police Station Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)
REKHA
SINGH
versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi , 110001., District : New Delhi, Delhi
2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through The Chairman , G-5, And6, Sector
10, Dwarika, New Delhi.
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority National Highways
Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
For respondent No.1 &: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan,Advocate
3/National Highways
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
29.07.2025
Heard.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1. That, this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent to
re-determine the award by including the multiplication factor of
TWO by applying the multiplication factor as per notification
dated 2.5.2019 and as per the division bench judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) no. 1961/2018 and Rev. P. no.
10/2019-Union of India Vs. Mahadev Gond dated 24.06.2019.
10.2. That the Hon’ble court may further grant interest for the
delayed payment of the compensation.
2
10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was the owner of
land bearing Survey No.1124/1, area 0.182 hectare, situated in Village
Jairamnagar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. His name was recorded
in the revenue records as Bhuswami. 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 on 27.02.2018. An award was passed
by the competent authority on 28.07.2017.
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. It is further pleaded that under the National Highways Act, 1956, as
amended in light of the applicability of the Act, 2013, the final award for
the land acquisition must include the following components:-
I. Market value of the land;
II. Multiplication factor;
III. Solatium;
IV. Interest (where applicable); and
5. 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
3
multiplication factor-2 shall be applicable in rural areas for the
acquisition of land for National Highways.
6. 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
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.”
7. The petitioner has pleaded that similar writ petitions have been
disposed of in light of the judgment in Mahadev Gond (supra).
8. Mr. Singh, 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.
9. Mr. Singh submitted that the respondents may be directed to pass a
supplementary award after applying the multiplication factor-2, and to
award compensation for standing crops and other damages to the
land, which could not be assessed at the time of the initial award.
4
10. 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
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.”
11.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
petition.
12. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for respondent/Union of India argued that
the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, was issued on
01.09.1970, and the notification under Section 3D was issued on
27.02.2018. The final award was passed on 28.07.2017. 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.
13. He further submitted that in the matter of Anita Agrawal v. State of
Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 1649 of 2017, the notification dated
5
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.
14. 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 28.07.2017 under the then-existing notification (dated 04.12.2014)
applying factor-I, it was valid and cannot be reopened.
15. With respect to the request for a supplementary award, he submitted
that such an award may be passed only where compensation for
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.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. In the present cases, the notification under Section 3A of the Act,
1956, was issued on 01.09.1970; notification under Section 3D was
issued on 27.02.2018; and the final award was passed on 28.07.2017.
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).
18. 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
6said 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.”
19. The notification dated 04.12.2014 was thus struck down in Mahadev
Gond (supra) on 30.10.2018.
20. 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:-
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).”
7
21. 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
28.07.2017 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.
22. 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 petitions, the existing award cannot be
revisited or reviewed. This Court is of the view that on the date of
computation 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