statute. In the matter of Vasu Dev Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 753 , and particularly, in paragraph 26 of said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if by a notification, the Act itself stands effaced; then such notification needs to be struck down. It is further held in para 118 of the said ruling that a statute can be amended, partially repealed or wholly repealed by the legislature - The delegated legislation must be exercised, it is trite, within the parameters of essential legislative policy. The benefit granted by the statute cannot be nullified by the rules framed thereunder. This aspect is clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of State of Karnataka and others Vs. H. Ganesh Kamath and others, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 402, and Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 327 . Viewed from this angle, perusal of Clause 2 of the First Schedule to the Act of 2013 makes it clear that the same prescribes discretion regarding determination of different slabs of multiplier factors for multiplying the market value of land in rural areas depending upon its distance from urban areas. Neither any discretion nor corresponding guideline is provided for limiting the multiplier factor to a figure below 2 and, as such, the decision of the appropriate Government reflected in the impugned notifications cannot be upheld. The same is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
