JUDGMENT :

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. Rule in all the above Writ Petitions. The Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. All the above Writ Petitions have been filed raising the same question of law, namely, (i) in acquisition proceedings, whether an Award can be passed without applying the multiplier factor as specified in the 1st schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’); (ii) whether the notification issued under the 2nd entry of the 1st schedule of the 2013 Act [specifying the multiplier factor], read with Section 26(2) thereof, is mandatory before making an Award; and (iii) where acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) and no Award under Section 11 thereof is passed, then after the coming into force of the 2013 Act, within how much time the Award has to be passed. These are the three basic core questions to be decided in the above Writ Petitions. It is agreed between the parties that the facts in all the cases are more or less the same, and a decision in one Writ Petition will cover all the others. Since the facts in Writ Petition No. 11513 of 2015 have been referred to by the counsel for the respective parties, we shall refer to the facts and the prayers in the said Writ Petition.

3. Writ Petition No. 11513 of 2015 is filed inter-alia seeking to quash and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings in relation to the lands more particularly described in Exhibit ‘A’ & ‘A1’ of the Petition as well as the Award passed in relation thereto (Exhibit ‘B’ to the Petition). By an amendment carried out to the above Petition, (a) a declaration is sought that no Award under Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act can be made unless the market value of the land is multiplied by a factor as specified in the 1st Schedule of the 2013 Act and (b) for a further declaration that the period of limitation of 12 months prescribed under Section 25 of the 2013 Act has expired and hence the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

4. Before we embark upon the journey of deciding the questions of law raised in the Petition, it would be necessary to advert to some brief facts. On 31st December 2011, the State Government published a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act notifying several lands in village Nidhavali, for acquisition of the Balganga River Dam Project. After objections were raised under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, on 19th December 2012, 25th January 2013, 26th January 2013 and 25th March 2013 Section 6 declarations were published in the Official Gazette as well as in the local newspaper. However, before the Award could be passed, in the interregnum, on 1st January 2014, the 2013 Act came into force. In other words, on the date when the 2013 Act came into force no Award was made/passed. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is for this reason that the present case falls under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of the compensation, would apply.

5. Be that as it may, on 19th March 2014, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 26(2) of the 2013 Act read with the 1st Schedule, issued a notification stipulating that when the land to be acquired is situated in rural areas, the market value of the land shall be calculated by the Collector [as per Section 26(1)] by applying the multiplier factor of 1.00. This notification was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4274 of 2014 before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. This Writ Petition was filed on 15th May 2014. On 26th May 2014 the Vacation Court at the Aurangabad Bench passed an ad-interim order staying the operation of the said notification which continued from time to time. Th