The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that an acquiring authority cannot selectively accept certain Reference Court awards while challenging similar awards in other matters arising from the same land acquisition proceedings, as such conduct is discriminatory. The Court has further clarified the methodology for determining compensation for both dry and seasonally irrigated lands, affirming the binding nature of Supreme Court and High Court precedent on compensation enhancement and valuation of trees. This judgment serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts under the Bombay High Court, specifically in land acquisition matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3576/2022 of DEVA HARLAL RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS LILABAI AND ORS Vs THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD AND ANR CNR HCBM030012752022 |
| Date of Registration | 24-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (for acquiring body’s appeals); PARTLY ALLOWED (for claimants’ appeals) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts under Bombay High Court; persuasive for other forums |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition / Compensation Determination |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The acquiring authority cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach in filing or contesting appeals; if it accepts the Reference Court’s award for some claimants, it must apply the same standard to similarly situated claimants, else such discrimination is impermissible. The Court clarified the basis for compensation, holding that where lands are shown as dry and no evidence is presented to establish irrigation, only compensation for dry land is payable; where existence of a well is shown but not supported by evidence of permanent irrigation, such land is treated as seasonally irrigated, not permanently irrigated. Valuation of trees must consider the claimants’ expert evidence unless rebutted by the acquiring body, and reliance on joint measurements and expert valuation (up to 80% per SC authority) is justified. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court guidance against discriminatory conduct by state authorities; settled law allowing enhanced compensation beyond the figure claimed, subject to payment of deficit court fee; methodology for classifying land for compensation; approach to valuation of trees per joint measurements and expert report in absence of rebutting evidence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | 49 appeals arose from acquisition for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anand, Aurangabad District. The SLAO awarded Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land. Reference Court enhanced compensation based on sale instance, classifying land as dry or seasonally irrigated, but did not always grant the claimed compensation if claimants had restricted their claims. The acquiring body did not lead rebuttal evidence. Both parties appealed for further reliefs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Bombay High Court; applies as a binding precedent in the jurisdiction for land acquisition compensation matters. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar issues; potential persuasive value for Supreme Court review; useful before all acquisition authorities. |
| Overrules | None—does not overrule prior binding precedent; affirms and applies governing precedent. |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar [(2018) 4 AIRBomR 554]—distinguished on facts regarding valuer’s registration. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that adopting a “pick and choose” approach to filing or contesting appeals in similar acquisition matters is discriminatory and not permissible for state authorities or their instrumentalities.
- Clarifies that acceptance of Reference Court awards in some matters binds the acquiring authority for all similarly situated claimants in the same acquisition.
- Establishes entitlement of claimants to receive compensation exceeding the amount claimed if the evidence warrants it, subject to payment of deficit court fee, even if a lower amount was originally claimed.
- Provides that, absent credible rebuttal evidence from the acquiring body, the expert valuer’s report cannot be disregarded for valuation of trees, especially when joint measurement supports the existence of the trees.
- Affirms the approach of treating lands with only a well as “seasonally irrigated” in absence of evidence proving permanent irrigation, and declines higher compensation for permanent irrigation without proof.
- Restates that litigation strategy or acquiescence by the acquiring body in some references constrains its ability to contest similar awards in related matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the issue of discriminatory conduct by the acquiring body, highlighting the Supreme Court’s position in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw SC 312) which prohibits a “pick and choose” approach in accepting or contesting awards for similarly situated claimants in the same acquisition.
- The assessment of land classification relied on the record: where no evidence exists of irrigation (no shown source of water, no 7/12 extracts), only dry land rates are payable. Where a well’s existence is shown but not permanent irrigation, rates for seasonally irrigated land apply; permanent irrigation must be affirmatively proven.
- The Court invoked Ambya Kalya Mhatra (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625) and a coordinate bench judgment (Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, Bombay HC, FA 604/2012) to reiterate that a claimant can be awarded compensation higher than the amount expressly claimed in the reference, provided sufficient court fee is paid and evidence supports the enhancement.
- For the valuation of trees, the Court drew support from the Supreme Court in Chinda Fakira Patil (2011 10 SCC 787), approving a reduction to 80% of the valuer’s estimate, especially where no rebuttal is led by the acquiring body and joint measurement supports tree existence.
- The Court distinguished Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018 4 AIRBomR 554), finding the factual matrix (regarding valuer’s registration or credibility) not comparable, as no challenge to the valuer’s competence had been raised in the present matters.
- Ultimately, the Court held the compensation determined by the Reference Court for both land and trees to be proper (save for necessary classification corrections), dismissed the acquiring body’s appeals, and allowed claimants’ appeals to the extent of correcting the compensation rates and tree valuation as per law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred by capping compensation at a particular figure even when claimants were legally entitled to more.
- Overlooked evidence (existence of wells) regarding irrigation facilities; pattern of crop is not decisive.
- Sought rate of Rs. 11,200/- per Are for lands with existing wells.
- Challenged adequacy of trees’ valuation; acquiring body led no rebuttal, so claimants’ private valuer report should have been fully accepted.
- Urged for enhancement of compensation for both land and trees beyond Reference Court award.
Respondent (Acquiring Body):
- Reference Court rates found to be excessive and unreasonable; supported the SLAO’s rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Are as modest and fair.
- Asserted insufficient material to support the Reference Court’s enhancement; sale instances not reliable.
- Alleged that private valuer’s evidence and reports were concocted, unreliable, and prepared without proper inspection or notice.
- Pointed to absence of 7/12 extracts to support irrigation claims; mere well existence does not make land irrigated.
- Claimed that expert valuer was unqualified and his valuation should be discarded.
Factual Background
The group of 49 appeals arises out of the acquisition of lands at village Anand, Taluka Soigaon, District Aurangabad for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry lands, which was challenged by claimants before the Reference Court. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation by relying on comparable sale instances, awarding different rates for dry and (seasonally) irrigated land and accepting 80% of expert valuation for trees. No oral or rebuttal evidence was led by the acquiring body. Both sides—acquiring body (in 17 matters) and claimants (including cross-appeals)—challenged the awards before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
- Section 4: Notification for acquisition.
- Reference to the requirement of evidence (such as 7/12 extracts, crop patterns) for determining nature of land.
- Application of judicially settled principle that compensation awarded need not be limited by the claimant’s stated figure if higher entitlement is established by evidence and the deficit court fee is paid.
- Court gives no expansive reading of “irrigation” and adheres strictly to proof requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment aggregates and disposes of a large group (49) of appeals by a single comprehensive judgment, applying the same principles to all, which ensures uniformity in compensation and avoids inconsistent outcomes.
- Highlights the procedural requirement for state authorities to issue formal letters of acquiescence when not appealing further, which were relied upon in some matters.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court and High Court precedent on discriminatory conduct by state authorities, entitlement to compensation, and methodology for valuation.