IMPORTANT POINT
The notification setting a multiplier of 1.00 for compensation calculation was struck down, necessitating a new notification to apply a multiplier of 2.00 for recalculating compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard

1. By way of instant petition, a notification dated 4th December, 2014 made in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 30 read with entries in column (3) against serial number (2) of First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’ whereby for calculating the market value, the multiplier 1.00 (One) was provided, was subject of challenge. The said notification is reproduced hereunder:-

“Notification No. F-4-28/Seven-1/2014 dated the 4th December, 2014.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 30 read with entries in column (3) against serial number (2) of the First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.30 of 2013), the State Government, hereby, notifies that in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied shall be 1.00 (One).

Provided that in any case compensation payable including (solatium and interest) shall not be less than Rs.6 Lacs per acre in case of barren land, less than Rs.8 Lacs per acre in case of non-irrigated single cropped land and Rs.10 Lacs per acre in case of irrigated double cropped land as per the provision of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 of the State.

[Published in C.G. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 4-12-2014 Page 1240]”

2. On the basis of said notification, an award was passed on 14/12/2016. The bunch of petitions were also filed challenging the said notification i.e. WPC No.1649 of 2017 in between Smt. Anita Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. & other connected matters wherein the Division Bench of this Court on 30/10/2018 has struck down the notification of 4/12/2014 and passed the following order at para 11 and 12 which are reproduced hereunder:-

“11. Drawing analogy from the view taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, which we have quoted with due approval, Court is left with no option but to strike down the notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P/1. A direction is issued that keeping in mind the legal position which emerges, the State Government will issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment.

12. It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but all such persons whose lands have been acquired and a multiplier of 1.00 has been used for calculating the compensation, the same will be required to be revised and revisited in light of the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority.”

3. The petitioners case, however was filed prior to the cases decided, on 19/05/2017. The State subsequently filed the review petitions bearing Review Petition No.190/2019 & other connected matters on the following back drop of the fact which is reproduced at para 4 of the order dated 12/12/2019 passed in Review Petition No.190/2019 & other connected matters. The relevant para 4 of the order is reproduced hereunder:-

“4.The case of the State is that, the judgment has been given effect to and appropriate notifications have been issued. But the grievance is with regard to the further observation/direction given in the paragraph 12 of the judgment, whereby the review Petitioners have been directed to reopen all the settled cases wherein the awards have been passed and to adopt the multiplier based on the declaration as given above, which will virtually open a 'Pandora's box', also unnecessarily burdening the State even in respect of the cases where the parties concerned do not have any grievance and have accepted the amount as per the awards passed. This will unsettle the settled position. This made the review Petitioners to approach this Court by filing review petitions pointing out the 'error