JUDGMENT ON BOARD Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Both the appeals are being decided together as they arise out of Award dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Settlement Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on a reference made by the Collector whereby the claim of the petitioners under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2013, the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquisition of lands situated at village Nawagaon of total 40 Khasra numbers P.C.No.71/2016 RI Circle Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur was made which included the lands of the appellants. As a consequence thereof, the notification was published in a local Newspaper on 23.03.2013. The appellants raised objections on 08.04.2013 before the Collector, Raipur objecting such acquisition of land. Subsequently, the appellant filed their petitions before the Collector, Raipur on 13.02.2014. Subsequently they again filed objection before the Land Acquisition Authority and SDM, Arang. The Land Acquisition Authority passed a common order dated 29.06.2015 where by an amount of compensation Rs.8,58,060/- was granted to Shiv Balak Mishra and Rs. 31,93,890/- to Sunita Mishra. 3. The compensation was determined according to the new Act of 2013 i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 24(i)(a) of the Act, 2013 was pressed into operation inasmuch as the earlier proceeding which started during existence of the old Act, the award was not passed and therefore the compensation was determined as per the new Act of 2013. The appellant received such information and filed an application for reference to review the order of compensation on 16.10.2015. The reply was filed before the reference Court and the deposition of parties were recorded. On 16.07.2018 the reference Court passed the order under the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority, whereby the compensation so awarded was held to be justified. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the land was situated at rural areas as such by application of section 30(2) read with first schedule Sl.No.2, the multiplier factor of 2 should have been applied which is as per the notification of the Center wherein Factor 2 was earmarked for such compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the land was situated at rural areas as such by application of section 30(2) read with first schedule Sl.No.2, the multiplier factor of 2 should have been applied which is as per the notification of the Center wherein Factor 2 was earmarked for such compensation. He would submit that he is not aggrieved by the quantum of compensation but only the issue is that the factor has wrongly been applied. He placed reliance on order passed in WPC No. 1649 of 2017 and connected cases wherein the Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2018 has struck down the notification dated 04.12.2014 issued by the State Government wherein for rural areas, Factor-1 was made applicable and accordingly directed that the compensation be enhanced. He therefore submits that under the circumstances, the notification being nonest the Factor-2 should have been applied for multiplication and accordingly, the compensation is required to be enhanced. The reference is also made to the review petition seeking review of the said order wherein this Court on 12.12.2019 has refused to review the order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the RDA would submit that at the relevant time when the factor was multiplied, it was notified by the State Government by notification of 2014. The said judgment quashing the notification was passed on 30.10.2018 and the reference Court has passed the judgment on 16.07.2018. Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court cannot be applied retrospectively and at the relevant time, since Factor -1 was notified. In such situations, the order passed by the learned Reference Court is well merited which do not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute about the chronological dates & events. The only question which crops up for consideration is as to whether correct multiplier was applied properly when the compensation award was passed by the Authority and subsequently by the Reference Court. In the instant case, the acquisition proceedings started when the earlier Act of 1894 was in operation. During passage of time in 2013, the new Act came into being. In the instant case, the acquisition proceedings started when the earlier Act of 1894 was in operation. During passage of time in 2013, the new Act came into being. Section 24(1)(a) of the new Act 2013 contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act in any case of the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the award is not passed , the compensation would be determined as per the new Act. For the sake of brevity, section 24(1)(a) & (b) are reproduced here under : “24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-- (a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.” 7. Subsequent to that, section 30 speaks about the award of solatium and it is for the Collector to determine the total compensation to be paid apart from the solatium which was required to be added. Section 30 of the Act is relevant and reproduced hereinbelow: 30. Award of solatium.-- (1) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a “Solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount. Explanation,-- For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. (2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule. Explanation,-- For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. (2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule. (3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum on such market value for the period commencing on an form the date of the publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (2) of section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. According to the First Schedule appended to Section 30(2), certain components were required to be considered for grant of compensation to the land owners. For the sake of convenience, Serial No.2 of the First Schedule which is relevant here for adjudication of the case, is reproduced hereunder : THE FIRST SCHEDULE [See section 30(2)] COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS The following components shall constitute the minimum compensation package to be given to those whose land is acquired and to tenants referred to in clause (c) of section 3 in a proportion to be decided by the appropriate Government. Sl. No. Component-of compensation package in respect of land acquired under the Act Manner of determination of value Date of determination of value (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Market value of land To be determined as provided under Section 26 2. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas 1.00 (one) to 2.00 (two) based on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government 3. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban areas 1 (one) 4. Value of assets attached to land or building To be determined as provided under Section 29. 5. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban areas 1 (one) 4. Value of assets attached to land or building To be determined as provided under Section 29. 5. Solatium Equivalent to one hundred per cent of the market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against serial number 2 for rural areas or serial number 3 for urban areas plus value of assets attached to land or buildings against serial number 4 under column (2). 6. Final award in rural areas Market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against serial number 2 plus value of assets attached to land or building mentioned against serial number 4 under column (2) plus solatium mentioned against serial number 5 under column (2) 7. Final award in urban areas Market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by the factor specified against serial number 3 plus value of assets attached to land or building mentioned against serial number 4 under column (2) plus solatium mentioned against serial number 5 under column (2) 8. Other component, if any, to be included 8. The State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of such power u/s 30(2), the notification dated 04.12.2014 wherein Factor-1 was fixed as a multiplying factor to determine the compensation of solatium. The said notification on challenge was struck down by the order of Division Bench dated 30.10.2018 passed in WPC No.1649/2017 and connected cases. The said order was subjected to review and this Court by order dated 12.12.2019 passed in Rev.P.No.190 of 2019 & connected cases expressed the view that the judgment dated 30.10.2018 will stand intact, however, an observation was made to delete Para 12 of such earlier judgment meaning thereby the judgment dated 30.10.2018 was made applicable prospectively. Para-7 of the review Order which is relevant and produced hereinbelow : “7. Paragraph 12 of the Judgment (apart which review petition have been filed) reads as follows: “12. Para-7 of the review Order which is relevant and produced hereinbelow : “7. Paragraph 12 of the Judgment (apart which review petition have been filed) reads as follows: “12. It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but all such persons whose land 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 to the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority.” After hearing both the sides and after going through the verdict passed by the Bench, we are of the view that the judgment will stand intact, even without ‘paragraph 12’ and we do not find any reason to interdict, alter or modify any of the finding or reason as discussed and as contained in paragraph 1 to 11. Since there was no such prayer in the writ petitions, we find it appropriate to delete ‘paragraph 12’ from the judgment dated 30.10.2018 in the aforesaid cases and the last paragraph numbered as ‘13’ will stand replaced and substantiated as paragraph ‘12’ of the judgment. It stands modified accordingly.” 9. Now the legal question, therefore, emerges that when the delegated legislation of notification has been declared as ultra wires what would be the effect ? In our considered view, the issue would be covered by the doctrine of prospective overruling inasmuch as the date on which the determination of factor was taken into account, the notification dated 04.12.2014 was alive which postulates that multiplying Factor-1 would be applicable in respect of land acquired in rural areas. Therefore, the land acquisition officer had applied Factor -1 to multiply the compensation and the notification was struck down by order dated 30.10.2018. By the time, the award under compensation and the order of Reference Court dated 16.07.2018 have already occupied the field. 10. Similar issue came up for consideration before Supreme Court in State of Manipur Versus Surajkumar Okram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 130 wherein the issue relating to the exercise of powers by the Court to save past transactions was elaborately discussed. Paras 25, 26 & 28 are relevant and quoted below : “25. 10. Similar issue came up for consideration before Supreme Court in State of Manipur Versus Surajkumar Okram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 130 wherein the issue relating to the exercise of powers by the Court to save past transactions was elaborately discussed. Paras 25, 26 & 28 are relevant and quoted below : “25. Elaborating on the point relating to the exercise of powers by the Court to save the past transactions, it is necessary to refer to the law laid down by this Court. Following the American jurisprudence, the doctrine of prospective overruling was applied in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762 this Court held that the power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution of India did not allow the Parliament to abridge the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Realising that there would be confusion and chaos if the judgment is given retrospective effect, this Court evolved a “reasonable principle to meet this extraordinary situation”. The following propositions were laid down by this Court in Golak Nath (supra) : (1) The doctrine of prospective over-ruling can be invoked only in matters arising under our Constitution; (2) It can be applied only by the highest court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court as it has the constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the courts in India; (3. the scope of the retroactive operation of the law declared by the Supreme Court superseding its earlier decisions is left to its discretion to be moulded in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it.” 26. Though Golak Nath (supra) applied the doctrine of prospective overruling in the context of earlier decisions of this Court on the same issues which had otherwise become final, the doctrine of prospective overruling has been applied by this Court even where the issue was being decided by the Court for the first time. 27. xxx xxx xxx 28. The principles that can be deduced from the law laid down by this Court, as referred to above, are : I. A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. II. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. III. II. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. III. In declaration of the law, the doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional. IV. Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional. In the aforesaid facts of this case when the declaration of law i.e., the delegated legislation which was made by notification dated 04.12.2014 was struck down by the Court on 30.10.2018, the doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that on the date when the compensation was calculated, the multiplying factor was being 1 and was occupying the field by a notification, the same cannot be disturbed as of now. We are therefore not inclined to review the order of Reference Court. In the result, the appeals sans merit and are dismissed.