Manish Pitale, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, heard finally.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, as to whether the notification and Government Resolutions (hereinafter referred to as the GRs), issued by the respondent No.3-State Government, pertaining to applicability of multiplier factor of 1.00, can apply to acquisition proceedings undertaken in pursuance of notification issued by the respondent No.1-Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the Central Government), under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the National Highways Act), for national highway project implemented by the respondent No.5-National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI). Particularly when the Central Government, by notification issued under Section 30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013), had specifically notified the multiplier factor to be 2.00. In other words, the petitioners object to respondent No.3-State Government effectively reducing the multiplier factor from 2.00 to 1.00, although the acquisition of the subject lands is at the instance of respondent No.1-Central Government for the NHAI to construct/widen the national highway. In this judgment, the expression ‘multiplier’ is being used in respect of the factor by which the market value of the acquired property, is to be multiplied.

3. The petitioners are the owners of land situated in Gat No.138 and 143 pt. in Village Odha, District Nashik. On 01.11.2021, by exercising power under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, the respondent No.1-Central Government issued notifications for acquisition of lands, including the land belonging to the petitioners, for public purpose of Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Section of the national highway in Nashik district. The said notification specifically invited objections from interested persons under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act.

4. On 02.12.2021, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation/objection under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, raising a specific contention with regard to the applicability of the multiplier factor concerning the said acquisition. The said representation/objection was submitted in the backdrop of the fact that despite notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.1-Central Government exercising power under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013, specifying the multiplier factor as 2.00, the respondent No.3-State Government had issued notification purportedly exercising power under the very same Act, specifying the multiplier factor as 1.00 for land being acquired for national or State highways and for Development Plan area and Regional Plan area.

5. The respondent No.3-State Government had also issued GR dated 06.10.2021, again specifying the multiplier factor as 1.00, even with regard to acquisition pertaining to national highways. This was reiterated by subsequent GR dated 14.01.2022, in which the said respondent had specifically referred to acquisitions undertaken in pursuance of notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act. According to the petitioners, the said respondent could not have issued the said notification and GRs, which are in the teeth of the power already exercised by the respondent No.1-Central Government, being the appropriate Government, for issuing notification in the context of land acquired for the NHAI.

6. In the context of the aforesaid objections raised by the petitioners, they were called for hearing on 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 and after hearing the petitioners, the respondent No.4- Competent Authority, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), National Highways Project, rejected the objection and held that multiplier factor of 1.00 shall apply. It is at this stage that the petitioners filed the instant writ petition in the year 2022, initially praying for a direction to the respondents to ensure that notification dated 09.02.2016, issued by the respondent No.1-Central Government specifying multiplier factor of 2.00, shall apply. The petitioners also prayed for quashing of notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 issued by respondent No.3-State Government, to the extent that they were made applicable to the acquisition of lands for the projects of the national highways undertaken by respondent No.5-NHAI.

7. During the pendency of the petition, the acquisition proceedings continued and culminated into an award dated 13.01.2023, which the petitioners claim to have received on 05.10.2023, wherein the multiplier factor of 1.00 was applied. Consequently, the petitioners amended the writ petition, to incorporate a challenge to the said award, to the extent of failure in granting multiplier factor of 2.00 in terms of notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.1-Central Government.

8. The respondent Nos.2 to 4-State authorities filed reply affidavit in the petition.

9. Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the acquisition of lands in the present case, pertained to national highway project and it was initiated in terms of notification issued by the respondent No.1- Central Government, under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, the notification dated 09.02.2016 issued under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013 by the said respondent, applied. It was submitted that as per Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013, the appropriate Government in the present case, concerning the national highway project, is only respondent No.1-Central Government and not respondent No.3-State Government. Therefore, respondent No.1- Central Government correctly exercised power under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013, to issue the notification dated 09.02.2016, specifying the multiplier factor as 2.00.

10. It was submitted that since the acquisition of land was not for the State Government or its projects, it could not have issued the impugned notification dated 05.10.2021 and the GRs dated 06.10.2021 as also 14.01.2022, for specifying the multiplier factor in respect of projects concerning respondent No.1-Central Government, including the national highway project. It was submitted that to the extent that the said notification and GRs issued by respondent No.3- State Government, included lands acquired for national highways, they were rendered bad in law and unsustainable. Reliance was place on entry No.23 to List I (Union list) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It was submitted that as per the said entry, respondent No.1-Central Government had exclusive jurisdiction to exercise power in relation to national highways and therefore, the said notification and GRs issued by respondent No.3-State Government were clearly rendered unconstitutional and bad in law.

11. It was submitted that since the impugned award was passed during the pendency of the writ petition, a specific challenge has been raised in the present petition to the said award, praying for quashing and setting aside of the same, due to the fact that respondent No.4-competent authority wrongly applied the multiplier factor of 1.00. It was submitted that this Court may quash the impugned award and hold that the notification and GRs issued by respondent No.3-State Government do not apply to the national highway projects. It was submitted that the said respondent ought to be directed to pass a fresh award by applying the multiplier factor of 2.00, as per notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.1-Central Government. It was further submitted that this Court may also reserve liberty for the petitioners to raise challenge to such fresh award, if any, on grounds other than the said question of applicability of multiplier factor of 2.00 to the acquisition proceedings.

12. Ms. Shehnaz Bharucha, learned counsel appeared for respondent No.1-Central Government.

13. Ms. M. S. Bane, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4-State authorities relied upon the reply affidavit on record, justifying the multiplier factor of 1.00 being applied, claiming that the aforesaid notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022, issued by respondent No.3-State Government, applied to all such national highway projects undertaken by respondent No.5-NHAI. It was submitted that if the multiplier factor of 2.00 is applied, the acquisition cost would be doubled and therefore, respondent No.3-State was justified in relying upon the said notification and GRs. It was submitted that if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the compensation calculated and granted in the impugned award, they were free to take recourse to the remedy available under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

14. Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5-NHAI, supported the contentions raised by the learned AGP and submitted that the remedy was indeed available for the petitioners under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, to raise their grievance. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserved to the dismissed.

15. We have considered the rival submissions, in the light of the provisions of the National Highways Act, as also the Act of 2013. There is an obvious conflict between the multiplier factor specified by the respondent No.1-Central Government on the one hand and respondent No.3-State Government on the other. While respondent No.3-State had specified the multiplier factor of 1.00 even for national highway projects, respondent No.1-Central Government had specified the same to be 2.00. This obviously has an effect on determination of compensation under the land acquisition proceeding.

16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of both the statutes. Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013 defines ‘appropriate Government’, while Section 30 thereof pertaining to award of solatium, in sub- section (2) specifies that the Collector is required to issue individual awards, detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of compensation shall be as specified in the First Schedule.

17. The First Schedule of the Act of 2013, at entry at Sr. No.2, specifies that the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas, shall be 1.00 to 2.00, as may be notified by the appropriate Government. The relevant provisions referred to hereinabove read as follows:

                   ‘3. Definition–In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

                   (a) xxx

                   (b) xxx

                   (c) xxx

                   (d) xxx

                   (e) “appropriate Government” means,—

                   (i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of, a State, the State Government;

                   (ii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within a Union territory (except Puducherry), the Central Government;

                   (iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union territory of Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of Puducherry;

                   (iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more than one State, the Central Government, in consultation with the concerned State Governments or Union territories; and

                   (v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union as may be specified by notification, the Central Government:

                   Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government;

                   30. Award of solatium.–

                   (1) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a “Solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount.

                   Explanation.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired.

                   (2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.

                   (3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (2)of section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.’

                   THE FIRST SCHEDULE COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS

                   The following components shall constitute the minimum compensation package to be given to those whose land is acquired and to tenants referred to in clause (c) of section 3 in a proportion to be decided by the appropriate Government.