Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Multiplication factor not applied without proper notification - Several sources emphasize that the application of a multiplication factor in compensation assessment requires explicit notification by the appropriate Government authority. For example, ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2020"], ["Mohammedali, S/o. Late Kadiri Master vs Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To The Government, Ministry Of Rural Development - Kerala"], and ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1628"] state that the State has not issued any formal notification specifying the multiplication factor, and instead issued instructions or guidelines, which are not legally sufficient.
Range and discretion in fixing the multiplication factor - The 2013 Act’s First Schedule permits the Land Acquisition Collector to fix a multiplication factor between 1 and 2 based on the distance from urban areas. However, the fixation must be based on proper notification, not mere instructions. For instance, ["Mohammedali, S/o. Late Kadiri Master vs Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To The Government, Ministry Of Rural Development - Kerala"] and ["Tipak Tayeng W/o Lombo Tayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented through by Secretary - Gauhati"] note that the discretion lies within the prescribed range, but without proper notification, the factor cannot be deemed applicable.
Voidance of awards when multiplication factor is not applied or improperly applied - Courts have held that if the multiplication factor is not notified or is applied incorrectly, the compensation awarded may be invalid. For example, ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2020"], ["Tipak Tayeng W/o Lombo Tayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented through by Secretary - Gauhati"], and ["IND_KAR00000013983"] point out that awards based on arbitrary or unnotified factors are liable to be set aside. The case ["Union of India, Rep. by the Defence Secretary, New Delhi vs T. Migo Basa S/o Late Tomi Basar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 6243"] highlights that when the notification of 2022 specified a factor of 1.00, applying a different factor (like 2) without proper basis renders the award illegal.
Legal requirement for notification and adherence to prescribed ranges - The law mandates that the Government must notify the applicable multiplication factor, and it must fall within the range of 1 to 2. When such notification is absent, or instructions are issued instead, the multiplication factor is not legally applicable, as reinforced in ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2020"], ["Tipak Tayeng W/o Lombo Tayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented through by Secretary - Gauhati"], and ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1628"].
Application of multiplication factor only in absence of government notification - In cases where no notification has been issued, the default is to consider the factor as 1. For example, ["Mohammedali, S/o. Late Kadiri Master vs Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To The Government, Ministry Of Rural Development - Kerala"] and ["Tipak Tayeng W/o Lombo Tayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented through by Secretary - Gauhati"] adopt a multiplication factor of 1 in the absence of specific notification, and any deviation from this without proper notification is deemed illegal.
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across the sources is that the multiplication factor must be applied only when explicitly notified by the appropriate Government authority. If such notification is absent, the factor defaults to 1. Applying a higher or lower factor without proper notification or in contravention of statutory provisions renders the award void or illegal. Therefore, the award is invalid if the multiplication factor is not applied when legally required or if it is applied without proper notification ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2020"], ["Mohammedali, S/o. Late Kadiri Master vs Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To The Government, Ministry Of Rural Development - Kerala"], ["Tipak Tayeng W/o Lombo Tayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented through by Secretary - Gauhati"].
In the complex world of land acquisition in India, landowners often face disputes over compensation calculations. A critical question arises: is an award void if the multiplication factor is not applied? This issue hinges on strict compliance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). Failing to apply the prescribed multiplier through a formal notification can render the entire award invalid, leaving parties to navigate costly legal challenges.
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, court rulings, and practical implications, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions. Whether you're a landowner challenging an award or an authority ensuring compliance, understanding this is essential.
Generally, an award in land acquisition proceedings may be considered void if the statutory requirement of applying the prescribed multiplication (multiplier) factor—as specified in a relevant notification or law—is not met. Courts have consistently held that merely issuing instructions or guidelines without a formal notification does not suffice. In such scenarios, the award can typically be set aside Baby Sakshi Greola VS Manzoor Ahmad Simon - 2025 1 Supreme 534.
This stems from Section 26(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which mandates multiplying the market value under Section 26(1) by a factor specified in the First Schedule United India Insurance Company LTD. VS Patricia Jean Mahajan - 2002 4 Supreme 518. Without this formal step, the award lacks a solid legal foundation.
These principles ensure fair compensation, protecting landowners from undervaluation while holding authorities accountable.
Section 26(2) explicitly requires: the market value determined under Section 26(1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule United India Insurance Company LTD. VS Patricia Jean Mahajan - 2002 4 Supreme 518. This factor varies by location (urban/rural) and distance from urban areas, accounting for social impacts and ensuring equitable valuation TipakTayeng Wife of LomboTayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 766.
The appropriate government bears the duty to consider all social impacts and notify the factor for fair compensation. Notifications ignoring this, such as those not complying with radial distance rules, have been quashed TipakTayeng Wife of LomboTayeng VS State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2018 Supreme(Gau) 766.
Courts emphasize that only a formal notification satisfies the law. In multiple rulings:- Instructions or guidelines replacing notifications were deemed inadequate, making awards liable to be set aside Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 2020Hardev Kaur VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(P&H) 1628.- The multiplier system is a statutory requirement, and procedural lapses invalidate awards Baby Sakshi Greola VS Manzoor Ahmad Simon - 2025 1 Supreme 534.
For instance, when a notification setting a multiplier of 1.00 was struck down, courts mandated fresh notifications (e.g., applying 2.00) for recalculation, as the original basis was removed Manglu, Son Of Shri Dasru VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 582. The notification providing a multiplier of 1.00 for calculating market value was challenged and subsequently struck down by the Court, necessitating a fresh notification for multiplier factors.
Non-application or use of an invalid multiplier voids the award:- Awards based on struck-down notifications cannot stand, as the foundation of the award itself is invalid Union of India, Rep. by the Defence Secretary, New Delhi vs T. Migo Basa S/o Late Tomi Basar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 6243.- Even temporary notifications later invalidated lead to awards being set aside Baby Sakshi Greola VS Manzoor Ahmad Simon - 2025 1 Supreme 534.
In another case, inconsistent application—using 1.25 instead of up to 2.00 based on distance—was ruled arbitrary. Rule 28(1) of Andhra Pradesh rules was declared invalid, directing modified factors per the Act's First Schedule Kesiraju Seetharamaiah VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(AP) 210. Multiplication factor required 1.00 to 2.00, but such notification limiting multiplication factor...
Landowners suffered losses when lower factors were applied contrary to guidelines like NHAI letters specifying 2.00, prompting courts to enforce statutory tables.
In summary, an award without the statutory multiplier via formal notification is typically void, as courts prioritize procedural rigor under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Landowners gain leverage to seek fairer compensation, while authorities must prioritize compliance to prevent setbacks.
Key Takeaways:- Formal notification is non-negotiable United India Insurance Company LTD. VS Patricia Jean Mahajan - 2002 4 Supreme 518.- Invalid multipliers doom awards Baby Sakshi Greola VS Manzoor Ahmad Simon - 2025 1 Supreme 534.- Seek legal review for discrepancies.
This post provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Laws and interpretations may evolve.
#LandAcquisition #RFCTLARRLaw #MultiplierFactor
the petitioner was located in the rural area and the State has not issued notification specifying multiplication factor to be applied for assessment of compensation. ... In the case in hand, admittedly the State has not issued any notification specifying multiplication factor to be applied for assessment of compensation. The land of the petitioner is admittedly located in the rural area. ... The State instead of issuing notification has merely issued....
If an urban area is to be determined by the nature of the area and not by the mere reason that it is called an urban area for the purposes of further enactments, there can be no objection to fix the multiplication factor as ‘one’. ... As regards fixation of the multiplication factor, he submits that in as much as the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, under Sl.No.2 therein, confers the discretion on the Land Acquisition Collector to fix the multiplication factor between ....
Multiplication factor is to be applied in terms of Section 26(2) read with First Schedule to the 2013 Act. The appropriate Government in the present case has not notified any multiplication factor. ... In the case in hand, admittedly the State has not issued any notification specifying multiplication factor to be applied for assessment of compensation. The land of the petitioner is admittedly located in the rural a....
Multiplication factor is to be applied in terms of Section 26(2) read with First Schedule to the 2013 Act. The appropriate Government in the present case has not notified any multiplication factor. ... In the case in hand, admittedly the State has not issued any notification specifying multiplication factor to be applied for assessment of compensation. The land of the petitioner is admittedly located in the rural a....
In order to appreciate the rival submission, the events would be also necessary inasmuch as when the earlier award was passed and was under challenge based on the notification of 4/12/2014 whereby the multiplication factor was used as 1.00 (One) for computing the market value, the same was under challenge ... It is further submitted that when the very basis of the computation of the award to determine the market value was removed, which is based on notification whereby multiplying factor was used as 1.0....
The Act does not conceive of having universal multiplication factor. ... 26. ... In case after considering the radial distance, the land is situated within the vicinity of another urban area, the multiplication factor will take into the account this fact and the lower multiplication factor will apply. ... In case after considering the radial distance, the land is situated within the vicinity of another urban area, the multiplication factor#....
The Act does not conceive of having universal multiplication factor. ... 26. ... In case after considering the radial distance, the land is situated within the vicinity of another urban area, the multiplication factor will take into the account this fact and the lower multiplication factor will apply. ... In case after considering the radial distance, the land is situated within the vicinity of another urban area, the multiplication factor#....
be put to serious loss if the multiplication factor 2.00 is not applied to their lands, as the multiplication factor applied to the lands in Poranki Village acquired for widening of road from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam vide Letter NHAI/RO-VJA/RFCLARR/LA/2016-17/1472 dated 26.10.2016, but the petitioners ... Multiplication factor required 1.00 to 2.00, but such notification limiting multiplication factor#....
For the said mater there should be a multiplication factor applied of 20. The provisional bills issued W.P.(C) No.27175/2014 was for the undercharging for reason of the multiplication factor not being applied. ... The appellate authority by Ext.P12 found that the multiplication factor applied by the Electrical Inspector need not be interfered with. This Court also does not find a....
In the award, dated 13.11.2023, the District Collector had applied multiplication factor of 1.00, based on the Notification dated 06.09.2022. ... Multiplication factor cannot be applied when Government notified rates are used for valuation of land under Section 26 (3). ... applicability of multiplication factor cannot override the expressed provision of the LARR Act, 2013 and that the Manual of 2022, does not expr....
He further submits that undue weightage, contrary to the settled position of law is being given to personal interview. (ii) AWT Multiplication Factor = 0.10 (iii) CAT Score Multiplication Factor = 0.25 and (iv) Application Rating Multiplication Factor for final composite score = 0.15. No details on the break-up of the score has been provided to the petitioner and by a response, the institute has refused to entertain his application under the RTI Act on the ground that break-up of score is not provided as per admission policy. As per the institute, the final selection is don....
The method of calculating the compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency depends upon the potential earning capacity of the deceased had he attained adulthood. A multiplication factor of 1.5 to counter inflation and erosion of the value of the money shall be applied. Therefore, the multiplicand would be the expected annual income, less what he required for himself. It can be assumed that the deceased would have, at least, earned what his father was earning, if not more.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
