WP_8122_22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8122 OF 2022
Vikrant Happy Homes Private Limited and others… Petitioners
vs.
Union of India, Through Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development, and others… Respondents
Mr. Pralhad Paranjape a/w. Mr. Rahul Punjabi, Ms. Shweta More and
Mr.Ishan Shroff for petitioners.
Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, i/b. Adv A. A. Ansari
for respondent No.1-UOI (Central Government)
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4-State authorities.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for respondent No.5-NHAI.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
RESERVED ON: 29
th
JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 02
nd
FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT: (Per Justice Manish Pitale):
. 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
1/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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
2/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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
3/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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)
4/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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
5/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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.
6/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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
7/15
WP_8122_22.doc
(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
8/15
WP_8122_22.doc
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.
Sr.
No
Component of
compensation
package in respect of
land acquired under
the Act
Manner of
determination of value
Date of
determination
of value
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. Factor by which the
market value is to be
multiplied in the case
of rural areas
1.00 (One) to 2.00
(Two) based on the
distance of project
from urban area, as
may be notified by the
appropriate
Government.
18. It is also relevant to note that entry No.23 of List I (Union list)
of the Seventh Schedule, as per Article 246 of the Constitution of
India, specifies highways declared by or under law made by
Parliament to be national highways. Thus, respondent No.1-Central
Government has exclusive power in the context of national highways.
We find that a conjoint reading of definition of ‘appropriate
Government’, as per Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013, which
pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union, as may
9/15
WP_8122_22.doc
be specified by the Central Government; Section 30(2) read with
First Schedule thereof and entry No.23 in List I of Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution of India, shows that as regards national highways,
the exclusive power and jurisdiction vests with the Central
Government.
19. In the present case, respondent No.1-Central Government
exercised power under Section 30(2) read with First Schedule of the
Act of 2013, to issue notification dated 09.02.2016, notifying that in
case of rural areas, the factor by which market value is to be
multiplied i.e. the multiplier factor shall be 2.00. It is also crucial to
take note of the fact that, as regards acquisition of the subject land
for Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Section of the national
highway in Nashik district, on 01.11.2021, the said respondent
issued notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways
Act. The acquisition concerned building, widening, maintenance,
management and operation of the national highway or part thereof,
which was exclusively within the domain of the respondent-Central
Government.
20. Yet, respondent No.4-Competent Authority, Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition), National Highways Project, being the authority of
the State Government, intended to apply the multiplier factor of
1.00, relying upon the notification dated 05.10.2021 and subsequent
GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 issued respondent No.3-State.
A perusal of the said notification and GRs shows that apart from
specifying the multiplier factor of 1.00 for State highways and lands
in Development Plan area and Regional Plan area, reference was
made to lands acquired for national highways.
10/15
WP_8122_22.doc
21. In fact, GR dated 06.10.2021 referred to compensation payable
for acquisition for national highways specifying the multiplier factor
as 1.00. Subsequent GR dated 14.01.2022 went a step further,
specifying that the multiplier factor of 1.00 shall apply to acquisition
of lands undertaken pursuant to notification issued under Section
3-A(1) of the National Highways Act. In this regard, reference to
Section 3-A of the National Highways Act is necessary, which reads as
follows:
‘3-A. Power to acquire land, etc.
(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a
public purpose any land is required for the building,
maintenance, management or operation of a
national highway or part thereof, it may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare its
intention to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a
brief description of the land.
(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of
the notification to be published in two local
newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular
language.’
22. It is clear from the perusal of Section 3-A(1) that it is only the
Central Government that can issue a notification, expressing its
satisfaction that the land is required for the public purpose of
building, maintenance, management or operation of national
highways or part thereof. The State Government has absolutely no
power under the said provision to issue any notification with regard
to acquisition of land for the purpose of national highways.
23. Thus, we find that respondent No.3-State Government could
not have issued notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated
06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 for specifying the multiplier factor of
1.00, as regards acquisition of lands pertaining to national highways.
11/15
WP_8122_22.doc
To that extent, the said notification and GRs trench upon the power
of the respondent No.1-Central Government and hence, to that
extent, they deserve to be quashed.
24. We find that respondent No.1-Central Government being the
appropriate Government, even under Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of
2013 and Section 30(2) read with the First Schedule thereof, has the
exclusive power to issue notification with regard to the multiplier
factor to be applied concerning acquisitions of lands for national
highways. The petitioners had raised specific objection in this regard
under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act,which was wrongly
rejected by respondent No.4-competent authority. During the
pendency of the challenge in this writ petition, the acquisition
proceeding continued, culminating in the impugned award dated
13.01.2023.
25. A perusal of the said award shows that respondent No.4-
competent authority wrongly applied the multiplier factor of 1.00 by
relying upon the aforesaid notification and GRs of respondent No.3-
State Government, despite issuance of notification dated 09.02.2016
by respondent No.1-Central Government under Section 30(2) read
with First Schedule of the Act of 2013, specifying the multiplier
factor at 2.00. On this ground itself, we are inclined to quash the
impugned award dated 13.01.2023.
26. We do not find any substance in the contention raised on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 - the State authorities that if the
multiplier factor of 2.00 was applied, the cost of acquisition would be
doubled. It cannot lie in the mouth of the said respondents to raise
such contention, when it clearly has no power to specify the
12/15
WP_8122_22.doc
multiplier factor in terms of the observations made hereinabove and
in the light of the fact that respondent No.1-Central Government has
exclusive power to do so. Even otherwise, payment of compensation
is the responsibility and liability of respondent No.5-NHAI, which is
an agency and instrumentality of respondent No.1-Central
Government. If at all respondent No.5-NHAI had any grievance
regarding the multiplier factor, it could have raised the same before
respondent No.1-Central Government. But respondent Nos.2 to 4-
State authorities clearly had no power/authority to go into the
question of specifying the multiplier factor for lands being acquired
in terms of notification issued by respondent No.1-Central
Government, by exercising power under Section 3-A(1) of the
National Highways Act, for building, widening, maintenance,
management and operation of the national highway or part thereof.
Therefore, the stand taken by respondent Nos.2 to 4-State authorities
is rejected.
27. We are conscious of the fact that upon the impugned award
being quashed, the respondent No.4-competent authority will have to
issue a fresh award by applying the multiplier factor of 2.00. But, the
petitioners are justified in contending that even after the fresh award
is issued, the remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways
Act, ought to be kept open for the petitioners, as regards the
quantum of compensation and various grounds that may be available
to them to challenge the same.
28. We find that the argument pertaining to alternative remedy
under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act being available to
the petitioners, with regard to the multiplier factor, cannot be
accepted, because the statutory arbitrator, who is a State
13/15
WP_8122_22.doc
Government functionary under Section 3-G(5) of the National
Highways Act, would not have the power to decide as to whether the
notification issued by respondent No.1-Central Government would
prevail or the notification and GRs issued by respondent No.3-State
Government would prevail. It is for this reason that we have
entertained the present petition and we intend to allow the same.
29. Hence, the following order:
(i) It is held that respondent No.1-Central Government has
exclusive jurisdiction to issue notification, as the ‘appropriate
Government’ under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013, with
regard to the multiplier factor in respect of lands under
acquisition, as per notification issued by the said respondent
under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act and that in
that regard, the respondent No.3-State Government has no
power to specify the multiplier factor.
(ii) Notification dated 05.10.2021 as well as GRs dated 06.10.2021
and 14.01.2022 are quashed, to the extent that they purport to
apply to lands acquired for national highways.
(iii) The impugned award dated 13.01.2023 passed by respondent
No.4-competent authority, which applies the multiplier factor of
1.00, on the basis of the said notification dated 05.10.2021 and
GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022, issued by respondent
No.3-State Government, is quashed.
(iv) Respondent No.4-competent authority shall now issue a fresh
award, by applying the multiplier factor of 2.00, as per the
notification dated 09.02.2016 issued by respondent No.1-
Central Government. The said exercise shall be completed
within six weeks.
14/15
WP_8122_22.doc
(v) It is made clear that upon the fresh award being issued by
respondent No.4-competent authority, if the petitioners have
any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation
determined, it would be open for them to take recourse to
remedy available under Section 3-G(5) of the National
Highways Act. This Court has expressed no opinion on the said
aspect of the matter.
30. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
15/15
Priya Kambli
PRIYA
KAMBLI
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
KAMBLI
Date:
2026.02.02
16:00:48 +0530
Legal Notes
Add a Note....