IMPORTANT POINT
The court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Both the appeals are being decided together as they arise out of Award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Settlement Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on a reference made by the Collector whereby the claim of the petitioners under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2013, the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquisition of lands situated at village Nawagaon of total 40 Khasra numbers P.C.No.71/2016 RI Circle Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur was made which included the lands of the appellants. As a consequence thereof, the notification was published in a local Newspaper on 23.03.2013. The appellants raised objections on 08.04.2013 before the Collector, Raipur objecting such acquisition of land. Subsequently, the appellant filed their petitions before the Collector, Raipur on 13.02.2014. Subsequently they again filed objection before the Land Acquisition Authority and SDM, Arang. The Land Acquisition Authority passed a common order dated 29.06.2015 where by an amount of compensation Rs.8,58,060/- was granted to Shiv Balak Mishra and Rs. 31,93,890/- to Sunita Mishra.

3. The compensation was determined according to the new Act of 2013 i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 24(i)(a) of the Act, 2013 was pressed into operation inasmuch as the earlier proceeding which started during existence of the old Act, the award was not passed and therefore the compensation was determined as per the new Act of 2013. The appellant received such information and filed an application for reference to review the order of compensation on 16.10.2015. The reply was filed before the reference Court and the deposition of parties were recorded. On 16.07.2018 the reference Court passed the order under the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority, whereby the compensation so awarded was held to be justified.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the land was situated at rural areas as such by application of section 30(2) read with first schedule Sl.No.2, the multiplier factor of 2 should have been applied which is as per the notification of the Center wherein Factor 2 was earmarked for such compensation. He would submit that he is not aggrieved by the quantum of compensation but only the issue is that the factor has wrongly been applied. He placed reliance on order passed in WPC No. 1649 of 2017 and connected cases wherein the Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2018 has struck down the notification dated 04.12.2014 issued by the State Government wherein for rural areas, Factor-1 was made applicable and accordingly directed that the compensation be enhanced. He therefore submits that under the circumstances, the notification being nonest the Factor-2 should have been applied for multiplication and accordingly, the compensation is required to be enhanced. The reference is also made to the review petition seeking review of the said order wherein this Court on 12.12.2019 has refused to review the order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the RDA would submit that at the relevant time when the factor was multiplied, it was notified by the State Government by notification of 2014. The said judgment quashing the notification was passed on 30.10.2018 and the reference Court has passed the judgment on 16.07.2018. Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court cannot be applied retrospectively and at the relevant time, since Factor -1 was notified. In such situations, the order passed by the learned Reference Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute about the chronolo