IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the doctrine of stare decisis applies, and legal principles declared by courts generally have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated 02nd of May, 2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby the State in exercise of power conferred 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 2013’) has fixed the multiplier factor, wherein it has been stated that in case of compensation given to whose land which is acquired under the Act, 2013 in respect of Rural areas, the factor by which the market value to multiply shall be 2.00. The main ground in these petitions is that this notification has been made prospectively which leaves the gap of the acquisition, inasmuch as, the earlier notification which unilaterally fixed the factor to be 1.00, was set aside by the order of this Court dated 30/10/2018 in a bunch of petitions.

2. The submission is made that though the lands of the petitioners were acquired in between prior to the notification dated 02/05/2019 the subsequent notification which is under challenge has been made applicable prospectively. Consequently, the petitioners are deprived of their valuable right which the Act, 2013 confers, inasmuch as, the land of the petitioners fall within the rural area, therefore, the notification is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, would submit that after the earlier notification which was issued by the State Government on 04/12/2014 was set aside and thus in the earlier order this Court directed to recalculate the compensation of the people whose lands were acquired wherein the multiplier of 1.00 was applied for calculating the compensation. He would further submit that subsequently the review having been filed by the State wherein that part of the direction was deleted by order dated 12/12/2019 consequently the compensation which was given to the petitioners and other likewise people prior to the present notification of 02/05/2019 which has already been settled at rest and no ambiguity or unreasonableness can be attached.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

5. Earlier the State in its power under Section 30 (2) of the Act, 2013 issued a notification on 04/12/2014 wherein the State Government fixed a multiplier of 1.00 in calculating the compensation for the lands situated in rural areas across the State. This Court after hearing the parties, on the backdrop of the fact held that the market value of the land located in the rural areas needs to be multiplied by unilateral factor 1.00, was not held to be justified as it should have been based on the distance of the project from the urban area. It is also obvious that the rural areas which are far from the urban areas, the multiplier is required to be 2.00 when the rural area covered under the project is closer to urban area scales down from less than 2.00.

6. Be that as it may, this Court in the earlier bunch of petitions i.e. WPC No. 1649/2017 and other connected matters, when the multiplier of 2.00 was fixed unilaterally, passed the following order, for the sake of brevity Para 11 & 12 of the said order are reproduced herein-below:

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 statue 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