Chandra Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3750 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Chandra Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 August, 2025

                                                       1




                                                                              2025:CGHC:43562


                                                                                              NAFR


NIRMALA               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO

                                          WPC No. 3928 of 2021

          1 - Chandra Kumar Soni S/o Ram Krishna Soni Aged About 59 Years R/o Hanuman
          Mandir Gali, Saragon, Police Station Saragaon, District- Janjgir- Champa,
          Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                 ... Petitioner(s)


                                                   versus


          1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Wokrs Department, Mantralaya,
          Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
          Raipur,                                                                          Chhattisgarh


          2 - Collector District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa,
          Chhattisgarh


          3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Champa/ Competent Authority (National
          Highway No. 200, New National Highway No. 49), Champa, District Janjgir-
          Champa         Chhattisgarh.,    District        :      Janjgir-Champa,          Chhattisgarh


          4 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And National
          Highways,       New     Delhi     (India),       District       :    New       Delhi,      Delhi


          5 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Raipur,
          District    Raipur,      Chhattisgarh,       District       :        Raipur,     Chhattisgarh


          6 - National Highways Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, Project
          Implementation Unit, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
          Chhattisgarh
                                             2

7 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate.

For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondents No.4, 5 & 7 : Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC. For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Shreya Daga, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction to set aside the impugned award dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent no.3.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent State Authorities to apply the multiplication factor of TWO as per notification dated 09.02.2016 with respect to the compensation for the petitioner's land and the petitioner shall be granted compensation after applying the multiplication factor TWO.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was the owner of

land bearing Survey Nos.1559/2, 1559, 1560, 1558/1 & 1558/6,

admeasuring 0182, 0.065 & 0113 hectares, situated in Village

Saragaon, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. The respondents

initiated land acquisition proceedings for the construction of National

Highways and a notification under Section 3D of the National Highways

Act was published in the Gazette of India. An award was passed by the

competent authority on 16.04.2018.

3. The petitioner in this petition pleaded that the respondent authorities

failed to apply the appropriate multiplication factor in accordance with

Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013"), read with Schedule I.

4. The petitioner further contended that in the final award, the appropriate

multiplication factor-2, as notified on 2.5.2019, was not applied. They

relied on the judgment in Mahadev Gond v. Union of India, WPC No.

1961/2018, dated 18.07.2018, wherein it was held that multiplication

factor-2 shall be applicable in rural areas for the acquisition of land for

National Highways.

5. The respondents issued a notification dated 2.5.2019 declaring that

multiplication factor-2 would apply to rural areas for land acquisition

under the National Highways Act. The petitioner has further stated that

a review petition filed in the matter of Mahadev Gond (supra) was

disposed of on 24.06.2019, wherein it was reaffirmed that the benefit of

the judgment dated 18.07.2018 would continue to apply. The relevant

observation is reproduced as under:

"The State has brought about an amendment whereby the appropriate multiplier has been fixed as TWO even in respect of acquisition for the State as per the notification dated 02.05.2019. This being the position, there cannot be any change with regard to the benefit/result flowing from the verdict passed by the Bench on 18.07.2018."

6. The petitioner has pleaded that similar writ petitions have been

disposed of in light of the judgment in Mahadev Gond (supra).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent

authorities failed to discharge their obligations under Section 26 of the

Act, 2013 read with Schedule I. He contended that the appropriate

multiplication factor-2 was not applied while passing the final award.

He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s

Ultratech Cement v. Mantram, (2025) 1 SCC 798.

8. The relevant paragraphs 39 and 51 of the judgment passed in M/s

Ultratech Cement (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:

"39. It is not in dispute that the Supplementary Award had to be passed as the compensation for standing crops, structures and other materials for the subject land was not evaluated under Award No.1 dated 08.06.2018. This was also recorded in the said award. We find that the passing of the Supplementary Award was not a fresh exercise but a continuation or extension of the 2018 award. Therefore, since JAL has already paid the compensation under the earlier award without demur, it cannot now seek to challenge its liability under the Supplementary Award or demand return of land on the ground that the acquisition purpose has failed due to delay.

51. Although the requirement to pass a supplementary award to determine additional compensation for standing crops, trees, damaged structures, houses, etc., was envisaged and recorded in the award dated 08.06.2018, the possession of the subject land was handed over to JAL via a certificate dated 07.06.2019 without passing such a supplementary award. This omission to complete the process before taking possession contravenes the mandate of Section 38(1) of the Act, 2013."

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition.

10. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for respondent/Union of India argued that

the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, was issued on

02.09.2017, and the notification under Section 3D was issued on

20.01.2018. The final award was passed on 16.04.2018. He referred to

Section 26 of the Act, 2013, and stated that the market value calculated

by the Collector would be multiplied by the factor specified in the First

Schedule. He submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh had issued a

notification dated 04.12.2014 applying multiplication factor-I.

11. He further submitted that in the matter of Anita Agrawal v. State of

Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 1649 of 2017, the notification dated

04.12.2014 was struck down by the Division Bench, and the State was

directed to issue an appropriate notification with a correct multiplication

factor.

12. He argued that a new notification was issued on 02.05.2019 applying

multiplication factor-2 to rural areas for structural loss, but it did not

provide for retrospective application. Since the final award was passed

on 16.04.2018 under the then-existing notification (dated 04.12.2014)

applying factor-I, it was valid and cannot be reopened.

13. With respect to the request for a supplementary award, he submitted

that such an award may be passed only where compensation for

standing crops, structures, or trees has not been determined. However,

the petitioners have not pleaded any such damages in their petitions,

and therefore, no supplementary award is warranted. He also placed

reliance on the judgment in Shiv Balak Misra v. State of

Chhattisgarh, FAM No. 195 of 2018.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. In the present cases, the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956,

was issued on 02.09.2017; notification under Section 3D was issued on

20.01.2018; and the final award was passed on 16.04.2018. The writ

petitions were filed after more than one year, seeking benefit of

multiplication factor-2 in the light of the judgment rendered in the

matter of Mahadev Gond (supra).

16. In the matter of Shiv Balak Misra (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench

in para-8 held as under:

"8. The State of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of powers under Section 30(2), issued a notification dated 04.12.2014 fixing Factor-I as the multiplying factor. The said notification was struck down by order dated 30.10.2018 in WPC No. 1649/2017 and connected matters. In review, this Court on 12.12.2019 in Rev.P.No.190/2019 & connected cases clarified that the judgment dated 30.10.2018 would stand intact, except Paragraph 12, which was deleted to apply the judgment prospectively."

17. The notification dated 04.12.2014 was thus struck down in Mahadev

Gond (supra) on 30.10.2018.

18. The notification dated 02.05.2019 issued by the State Government is

reproduced as under:-

"Be it enacted by the Chhattisgarh Legislature in the Seventieth Year of the Republic of India, as follows:-

1.(1) This Act may be called the Chhattisgarh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Determination of Multiplying Factor in case of Rural Areas) Act. 2019.

(2) It shall extend to the whole State of Chhattisgarh.

(3) It shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

2(1) "Rural Areas" means areas other than urban area defined under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959

(20 of 1959), urban area notifie for this Act from time to time and areas declared as specific area.

(2) Words and expressions used herein but not defined shall have the same meaning as assigned to them under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013) and Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959).

3. The Compensation to be given to those whose land is acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to multiplied shall be 2.00. (Two)."

19. In the present case, considering the decision rendered in Mahadev

Gond (supra) and the subsequent notification dated 02.05.2019, the

doctrine of prospective overruling applies. Since the award dated

16.04.2018 was passed under then the prevailing notification of

04.12.2014, which was only struck down later, the benefits of the

judgment rendered in Mahadev Gond (supra) cannot be extended

retrospectively to affect this award.

20. With regard to the petitioner's claim for a supplementary award for

damages to standing crops, trees, or structures, there being no specific

pleading in writ petition, the existing award cannot be revisited or

reviewed. This Court is of the view that on the date of computation of

compensation, multiplication factor-I was in force and validly applied;

thus, no case is made out for grant of any relief. Accordingly, the

present petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi