2015 Supreme(Bom) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, A.M. BADAR, JJ.
Panjabrao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2014
Decided on: 9th March, 2015

Headnote:Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 26(2), First Schedule Clauses 2, 106, 107, 108 and 109 Rules, 2014, Rule 2 Compensation for land owners of rural area. Government Notification dated 13.8.2014 pegging maximum multiplier factor only to 1.10 for all land in rural area which are more than 25 kms. away from urban area, is arbitrary and ultra vires provisions of Article 14 of Constitution. It is required to be kept in mind that the notification or rules which are examples of delegated legislation, cannot override the statutory mandate. The subordinate legislation has to supplement and not to supplant the statute. The benefit granted by the statute cannot be nullified by the rules framed thereunder. Viewed from this angle, perusal of Clause 2 of the First Schedule to the Act of 2013 makes it clear that the same prescribes discretion regarding determination of different slabs of multiplier factors for multiplying the market value of land in rural areas depending upon its distance from urban areas. Neither any discretion nor corresponding guideline is provided for limiting the multiplier factor to a figure below 2 and, as such, the decision of the appropriate Government reflected in the notifications dt. 19.3.2014 and dt. 13.8.2014 cannot be upheld. The same is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

       A subordinate legislation which is not backed up by any statutory guideline under the substantive law and opposed to the enforcement of a legal right would not be valid. In this context, if it is accepted that discretion to limit the multiplier factor to any figure between 1 and 2 is delegated to the appropriate Government by the Act of 2013, then such delegation would be arbitrary as well as violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution as there is no corresponding criteria or standard so as to enable the appropriate Government to act within the framework of the statute.

       There is no guiding principle or policy provided to guide the exercise of such discretion in limiting the multiplier factor in rural area to any figure between I and 2. As against this, the guiding principle, as seen from the First Schedule to the Act of 2013, seems to be fixing the schedule or slabs of distances of projects from urban areas wherein different multiplier factors ranging from I to 2 can be determined, the minimum being I and the maximum being 2. If absolute discretion is held to be conferred on the appropriate Government in fixing the factor, as contended by the State, then the delegation of such power will have to be construed as excessive in nature and ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution because of absence of guiding principle or policy provided in the statute for limiting the multiplier factor below 2.

       This notification dated 13.8.2014 appears to be merely an attempt to show compliance of statutory mandate under the First Schedule which requires the appropriate Government to determine the factor of multiplier in rural areas between 1 to 2 based only on the distance from urban area. Financial implications and financial constraints can not be said to be relevant factor for determining the multiplier factor by which the market value of the land in rural area is required to be multiplied. Thus, extraneous consideration of inadequacy of funds and inviable increase in budgetary cost vitiates the exercise of discretion conferred upon the appropriate Government under the First Schedule to the Act of 2013 and, therefore, the impugned notifications are bad in law as they are product of extraneous considerations.

       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014 - Rule 2. See Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 26(2).