AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In the present writ applications, the legality and validity of the notification dated 04.12.2014 which is Notification No.F-4-28/Seven-1/2014 issued by the State Government 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') is under challenge. The said notification is Annexure P/1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that by said notification the State Government has fixed multiplier of 1.00 (one) in calculating the compensation for lands situated in rural areas across the State. Land of the Petitioners' were acquired by the Respondent/State authorities for various reasons across the State. While calculating the award, the Respondent authorities keeping in mind the notification dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P/1), decided to apply the multiplier of 1.00 when the statue itself provided multiplier ranging from 1.00 (one) to 2.00 (two).

3. It is the contention for the counsel for the Petitioners that the said notification is against the spirit and object of the legislation since the legislature themselves have fixed the multiplier ranging from 1.00 to 2.00 depending upon the location of the land in the rural areas. Further the rural area from civilization or an urban location more the multiplier. This is so because land being the sole source of livelihood for village people and since the value of land in the remote or rural areas is on the lesser side, therefore, a better compensation is required to be paid for such land by a higher multiplier.

4. During the course of argument, counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on identical issue, which came up for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of Panjabrao S/o Ganpatrao Borade v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2015 (6) MhLj 69.

5. Section 26(1) of the Act of 2013 has given power to the Collector to determine the market value of the land proposed to be acquired by adopting the criteria laid down therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, provides that market value so calculated by the Collector as per the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 26 shall be multiplied by Factor to be specified in the First Schedule. It is appropriate to reproduce the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) to Section 24, as well as subsection (2) of Section 26, for ready reference:

"Sec. 24(1)............................................................

(a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;

(b) ......

(c) ......"

"Section 26(1)............................................................

(a) ......

(b) ......

(c) ......

(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.

.............."

6. In the case of Panjabrao (supra), a notification issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra notifying a multiplier of 1.00 to the extent of 1.10 for varied distance in kilometers was notified. It became subject of challenge, whether such notification stood the test of the legislative intent and object behind the varying multiplier factor, provided in the Act.

7. Having dealt with the various contentions placed before the High Court which more or less is in similar terms in the present cases, the Division Bench answers the question of validity of notification on the multiplier effect in following words:-

“28. Section 26 of the Act of 2013 provides the criteria which needs to be adopted by the Collector for assessing and determining the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 11 of the Act. Section 26(2) provides for multiplication of that market value b