Chhotelal Tamboli S/o Rajaram Aged About 51 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No v. 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Delhi
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:27794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3252 of 2019 Chhotelal Tamboli S/o Rajaram Aged About 51 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 481/50, R/o Village Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Delhi Highways, New Delhi., New Delhi, District : 2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through The Chairman, G.5 And 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (National Highway Division), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Competent Authority (National Champa Chhattisgarh. Highway), Champa, District Janjgir 7 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4745 of 2019 1 - Kamla Lalchandani W/o Jivan Lalchandani Aged About 62 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 1843/1, 1842, Village Beltara, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Prachi Lalchandani W/o Mahesh Lalchandani Aged About 34 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 1853/2, Village Beltara, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahesh Lalchandani S/o Jivan Lalchandani Aged About 31 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 1843/3, Village Beltara, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner(s) 2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector-10, Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority National Highways Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4741 of 2019 Kajal Dayalani W/o Anand Ram Dayalani, Aged About 45 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No., 24/1 ( Village Khairkhundi ) R/o Flat No. A - 5 Vishal Heights Mahamaya Vihar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, 110001., District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner 2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Chairman, G - 5 And 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Cum Competent Authority, National Highways Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 5 - Collector, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4748 of 2019 Kajal Dayalani W/o Anand Ram Dayalani, Aged About 45 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 129/5 (Village Lokhandi) R/o Flat No. A-5 Vishal Heights Mahamaya Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi 110001, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner 2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority, National Highways Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3263 of 2019 Kunti Bai W/o - Chhotelal Aged About 38 Years Owner Of Land Bearking Khasra No. 1252/63/kha, R/o - Village Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Chairman, G.5, And 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 4 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (National Highway Division), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue)/ Competent Authority (National Highway), Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 7 - Collector, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3265 of 2019 Jokar @ Jagannath Tamboli S/o Pakla Aged About 84 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 481/11 And 481/13, R/o Village Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - Union Of India The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (National Highway Division), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department National Highway Division, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/conpetent Authorirty (National Highway) Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 5 WPC No. 4146 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o R. K. P. Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 25, Phase-Ii, Vaishali Nagar, Shrikant Verma Marg, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi 110001, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner 2 - National Highways Authority Of India Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector 10, Dwarika New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, National Highways Division Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority National Highways Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3271 of 2019 Mohan Lal S/o Thuru Aged About 43 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 481 / 3, R/o Village Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - Union Of India Through - The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi. ---Petitioner 2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Chairman, G. 5 And 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department ( National Highway Division ), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department , National Highway Division, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 6 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) / Competent Authority ( National Highway ) Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Collector, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4742 of 2019 Anand Ram Dayalani S/o Sundar Das Dayalani Aged About 48 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 572/3 (Village Beltara), R/o Flat No. A-5 Vishal Heights Mahamaya Vihar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi.- 110001, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Petitioner 2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority National Highways Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For respective Respondent(s) : : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC & Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- 7 “10.1.That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent to re-determined the award by applying the multiplication factor of TWO 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, 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 petitioners were the owners of various lands situated in Village Amsena, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. Their names were 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 05.10.2018. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions have 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 8 5. The petitioners 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. 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 petitioners have 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 petitioners have pleaded that similar writ petitions have been
Decision
disposed of in light of the judgment in Mahadev Gond (supra). 8. Mr. Shushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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. 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. Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 05.10.2018. He referred to Section 26 of the Act, 2013, and stated that the market value calculated 10 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 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 05.10.2018 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 05.10.2018. 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). 18. In the matter of Shiv Balak Misra (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench in para-8 held as under: 11 “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.” 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 12 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).” 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 05.10.2018 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. 22. With regard to the petitioners’ 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, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim