JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is to quash the notification dated 07.02.2024 which has been produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 to the extent it notifies the multiplication factor for the purpose of fixing of the land value with respect to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as ‘one’. The grounds on which the order is challenged are: 1) the Land Acquisition Collector does not have Authority to issue such a notification; 2) the notification is not in accordance with the schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining the source of power to the Land Acquisition Collector to issue the notification and also detailing the manner in which a notification has been issued in accordance with the schedule to the Act. 3. Heard the counsel on both sides. 4. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Lakshadweep area is a rural area and going by the notification dated 09.02.2016, issued by the Central Government the multiplication factor in the case of rural areas is to be ‘two’. The notification dated 09.02.2016 has been produced along with W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 as Ext.P6. It is contended that the appropriate Government in the case of Union Territory of Lakshadweep is the Central Government or at best the Administrator who has been notified to be the appropriate Government by orders issued by the President in exercise of the power under Article 239 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Administrator could not have delegated the power to the District Collector and there could not have been any sub delegation to the Land Acquisition Collector. Going by the notification dated 30.11.2015 produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025, the President has directed that the powers and functions of the appropriate Government under the Act with respect to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep be exercised and discharged by the Administrator. Section 3(e) of the Act defines appropriate Government to mean, in relation to acquisition of land situated in all Union Territory except Puducherry, as the Central Government. Section 3(e) of the Act defines appropriate Government to mean, in relation to acquisition of land situated in all Union Territory except Puducherry, as the Central Government. The First Schedule to the Act under serial numbers 2 and 3 says that the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas will be 1 to 2 based on the distance of the projects from the urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government and the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of urban areas will be ‘one’. The power is thus available to the appropriate Government to fix the multiplication factor. Ext.P6 produced in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 relates to notification where the appropriate Government is the Central Government and it will not apply to the case of the Union Territory of Lakshaweep, where the appropriate Government is to be the Administrator. A reading of Ext.P5 would show that, it is a notification of the appropriate Government though it is signed by the Land Acquisition Collector. By Ext.P4 produced in W.P.(C) No.4432 of 2025 the Administrator had ordered that the appropriate Government for the entire district shall be the District Collector. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Administrator did not have power to delegate the power to the District Collector. 6. The Standing Counsel for the Administrator would submit that the proviso to Section 3(e) says that in respect to the public purpose in a district for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such district shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government. It is hence submitted that the Administrator in his capacity as the appropriate Government has notified the Collector to be the Appropriate Government and the notification is well within the power available to the appropriate Government. I find justification in the above contention. Ext.P5 cannot be said to be without authority. 7. The only other question is whether Ext.P5 has been issued in accordance with the provision contained in the First schedule to the Act. I find justification in the above contention. Ext.P5 cannot be said to be without authority. 7. The only other question is whether Ext.P5 has been issued in accordance with the provision contained in the First schedule to the Act. The counsel for the petitioners contended that going by serial No.3 to the First Schedule the factor has to be fixed based on the distance of the project from the urban area and since the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is not an urban area, the factor cannot be fixed as ‘one’ as provided under serial No.3 of the First Schedule. It is submitted that there has been no consideration of the basis, which is to determine the factor as per serial No.2 of the First Schedule. It is further submitted that since the entire Lakshadweep area is in a rural area the multiplication factor should have been ‘two’ since no distance can be drawn between an urban area and rural area in the case of Lakshadweep. The Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the power is available to the appropriate Government to fix any factor between 1 and 2 and there is no prohibition for fixing ‘one’ as the factor. It is submitted that fixing ‘one’ as the factor is also justified by the fact that even though the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is not treated as an urban area for any other purpose it has all the characteristics of an urban area going by the density of population and other factors which have been explained in the counter affidavit. Details of the total population in the total area and the manner in which it is comparable to urban areas have been explained. It is stated that the road network density in Lakshadweep is the fourth highest in India and in terms of other infrastructure facilities, Lakshadweep has an Airport at Agatti Island and all the Islands of Lakshadweep are well equipped with healthcare facilities, Government Educational Institutions and Ships. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that there is power available to the appropriate Authority to fix any factor between 1 and 2 and there is no prohibition to having ‘one’ as the factor if there is sufficient justification for the same. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that there is power available to the appropriate Authority to fix any factor between 1 and 2 and there is no prohibition to having ‘one’ as the factor if there is sufficient justification for the same. 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’. I do not find any illegality on the criteria in fixation of the multiplication factor. No sufficient grounds are made out for warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed.