Facts: The petitioners, landowners in Nashik, challenged the applicability of a multiplier factor of 1.00 to their land acquisition compensation for a national highway project. The Central Government, under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, issued notifications for land acquisition, while the State Government issued GRs specifying a multiplier of 1.00, despite the Central Government's notification under Section 30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifying a multiplier of 2.00. The petitioners contended that the State Government's actions were beyond its jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, challenging the State Government's notification and GRs, and the subsequent award based on the lower multiplier. The petition was amended to challenge the award after it was passed during the pendency of the writ.
Issue: Does the State Government have the power to specify the multiplier factor for land acquisition compensation concerning national highway projects, when the Central Government has already issued a notification under Section 30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifying the multiplier factor?
Holding: No, the State Government does not have the power to specify the multiplier factor for land acquisition compensation concerning national highway projects. The Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. The High Court quashed the State Government's notification and GRs to the extent they applied to lands acquired for national highways, and also quashed the impugned award.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 3(e)(v) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, read with Section 30(2) and the First Schedule, the Central Government has exclusive power and jurisdiction over national highways. Entry No. 23 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India also supports this view. The Court found that the State Government's notification and GRs "trench upon the power of the respondent No.1-Central Government". The Court also held that the alternative remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act was not a bar to the writ petition, as the statutory arbitrator, being a State Government functionary, could not decide on the validity of the Central Government's notification.