Bombay High Court Holds Centre Alone Can Fix Multiplier for Lands Acquired for National Highways; State Notifications Quashed

A bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat heard a writ petition challenging the applicability of state-issued notifications and government resolutions that fixed the multiplier for land acquisition compensation at 1.00 where the Central Government had earlier notified a multiplier of 2.00 for rural areas under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petition concerned acquisition proceedings initiated by the Central Government under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for a national highway project executed by the NHAI.

The High Court held that the Central Government, as the “appropriate Government” for national highways, had exclusive jurisdiction to notify the multiplier under Section 30(2) read with the First Schedule of the 2013 Act, and the State Government had no power to override that notification. The Court quashed the State’s notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 to the extent they purported to apply to lands acquired for national highways, and set aside the award dated 13.01.2023 that applied a multiplier of 1.00. The Court directed the Competent Authority to pass a fresh award applying the multiplier of 2.00, as per the Central Government’s notification dated 09.02.2016, within six weeks, while keeping open the petitioners’ remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, we find that respondent No.3-State Government could not have issued notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 for specifying the multiplier factor of 1.00, as regards acquisition of lands pertaining to national highways. To that extent, the said notification and GRs trench upon the power of the respondent No.1-Central Government and hence, to that extent, they deserve to be quashed.”

Background

The petitioners owned land in Village Odha, Nashik district; the Central Government, by notification dated 01.11.2021 under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, declared its intention to acquire the land for the Surat‑Nashik‑Ahmednagar Greenfield national highway. The petitioners objected under Section 3-C, contending that the Central Government’s 09.02.2016 notification under Section 30(2) of the 2013 Act prescribed a multiplier of 2.00 for rural areas, and that State notifications and GRs fixing the multiplier at 1.00 could not apply to acquisitions for national highways. The Competent Authority rejected the objection and applied a multiplier of 1.00, leading to the present writ petition challenging the State notifications, GRs and the award dated 13.01.2023.

The State respondents defended the 1.00 multiplier and urged dismissal, while NHAI supported the position that the petitioners could pursue the statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) before the arbitrator. The Court analysed Section 3(e)(v) (definition of “appropriate Government”), Section 30(2) and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act and noted Entry 23, List I of the Seventh Schedule (national highways) under Article 246. The Court held that the Central Government had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the multiplier for acquisitions under notifications issued pursuant to Section 3‑A(1) of the National Highways Act, and the State’s measures intruded upon that domain. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned State notification and GRs insofar as they applied to national highways, quashed the award that applied the 1.00 multiplier, directed issuance of a fresh award applying multiplier 2.00 within six weeks, and left open the petitioners’ right to challenge the quantum under Section 3‑G(5). The Court rejected the contention that the statutory remedy alone was adequate to decide the question of which notification prevailed, observing that the statutory arbitrator would be a State functionary without power to resolve the inter-governmental jurisdictional conflict.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8122 OF 2022 Case Title: Vikrant Happy Homes Private Limited and others … Petitioners vs. Union of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, and others … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pralhad Paranjape a/w. Mr. Rahul Punjabi, Ms. Shweta More and Mr. Ishan Shroff (Advocates) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, i/b. Adv. A. A. Ansari (for Respondent No.1 – Union of India); Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP (for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 – State authorities); Mr. Rakesh Singh, i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. (for Respondent No.5 – NHAI)