The Bombay High Court holds that an acquiring authority’s “pick and choose” approach—challenging enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court in some land acquisition cases but acquiescing in others similarly situated—is discriminatory and impermissible as per Supreme Court precedent. The judgment affirms and applies anti-discrimination principles in land acquisition, clarifies compensatory rates for dry and seasonally irrigated land, and confirms correct valuation methodology for trees, serving as binding authority within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3533/2022 of SUDAM SANDU RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS. UKHARDABAI SUDAM RATHOD AND ORS Vs THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, SINCHAN BHAVAN, AURANGABAD |
| CNR | HCBM030012242022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-11-2022 |
| 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 |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | None specified (Single Judge) |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Bombay High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the principle in Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312) and applies Ambya Kalya Mhatra (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625) |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition / Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The acquiring authority cannot adopt a discriminatory “pick and choose” approach—accepting the Reference Court’s enhanced compensation award for some claimants and appealing against others in identically situated cases—without violating Supreme Court precedent and Article 14 principles. Where claimants are entitled to higher compensation based on evidence, courts must award appropriate compensation even if the initial claim was for a lesser amount, subject to court fee adjustment. The Reference Court’s methodology in valuing trees at 80% based on joint measurement and expert evidence is affirmed as proper. Separator between dry and irrigated land compensation rates is based strictly on the presence and evidence of irrigation sources and not merely on recorded claims or choice of crops, aligning with the Supreme Court’s approach. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Forty-nine first appeals arose from land acquisition (Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project, Village Anad, Aurangabad). 17 appeals were by the acquiring authority (with cross-appeals by claimants), and 15 appeals for enhancement were by claimants alone. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded a uniform rate for acquired lands and trees. Reference Court enhanced dry land compensation from Rs. 1200/- per Are to Rs. 5600/- per Are based on comparable sale evidence, and fixed higher amounts for seasonally irrigated land. The acquiring authority appealed only in some cases, not in others (letters of acquiescence placed on record). The Bombay High Court found such differential conduct discriminatory, examined all appeals on merits, and settled compensation classification and valuation principles for both land and trees. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554 distinguished on facts and valuer registration issue |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Establishes that the State/acquiring authority cannot appeal only select compensation awards while acquiescing to identical awards for other claimants in the same acquisition—such discrimination is legally prohibited.
- Affirms that entitlement to compensation is based on evidence and classification; not limited to the amounts claimed in pleadings if the record supports a higher figure (subject to court fee payment).
- Clarifies the classification of land: Only lands with evidence of irrigation sources (not just the existence of a well or personal cultivation choice) qualify for enhanced (seasonally irrigated) rates, not “permanently irrigated” rates absent supporting evidence.
- Affirms use of expert evidence for valuation of trees and upholds Reference Court’s method of allowing 80% of private valuer’s assessed value, especially when not challenged by evidence.
- The principle applies to groups of similarly situated landowners in acquisition proceedings, applicable where the State adopts selective appellate conduct.
- Discriminatory conduct by acquiring authorities can be successfully challenged, and this decision may be cited to oppose such practices.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the acquiring authority’s conduct—appealing only some Reference Court awards while leaving others intact for similarly placed claimants—was discriminatory.
- Relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312), which prohibits such pick-and-choose conduct as a violation of equality and non-discrimination obligations on the State.
- Conducted a merits assessment of the Reference Court’s compensation awards. For dry lands, accepted Rs. 5600/- per Are in the absence of evidence of irrigation sources. For lands with some irrigation (existence of wells), Rs. 8400/- per Are as seasonally irrigated, but held that none of the lands qualify as permanently irrigated given lack of evidence/documents like crop patterns or 7/12 extracts.
- Applied Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal authorities to hold claimants are not limited by quantum claimed in pleadings and may be granted higher compensation if facts so warrant, upon payment of deficit court fees.
- Affirmed the Reference Court’s acceptance of private expert valuer’s evidence (Dr. Vishnu Patil) for valuation of trees, awarding 80% of valuer’s assessed value as per Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787, noting the lack of rebuttal evidence from the acquiring authority. Distinction made from Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) as no challenge to valuer’s competency arose here.
- Systematically dismissed the acquiring authority’s appeals as barred by the anti-discrimination principle and lacking on merits; partly allowed appeals by claimants for appropriate enhancement.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Claimants:
- The Reference Court erred by restricting the compensation rate; claimants entitled to more based on evidence.
- Ignored irrigation facilities (like wells) which should qualify the land as irrigated.
- Sought award of Rs. 11,200/- per Are for lands with wells.
- Valuation for trees was inadequate; no rebuttal from the acquiring authority, so valuer’s report should be fully accepted.
- Entitled to further enhancement of land and tree compensation.
Respondent / Acquiring Authority:
- The Reference Court’s award is excessive and not supported by reliable sale instances.
- Valuer’s reports for trees are fictitious, made after long delay, and without proper inspection notice.
- Expert’s evidence is not credible due to lack of registration and is afterthought.
- Claimants failed to produce 7/12 extracts to prove crop pattern or irrigated status of lands.
- Objected to granting higher compensation than claimed (estoppel).
Factual Background
The appeals arose from the acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad. Possession was taken in February 2011, followed by statutory notifications and a common award by the SLAO on 24.09.2012, uniformly fixing compensation for acquired lands and trees. Dissatisfied with the compensation, claimants sought enhancement before the Reference Court, which granted higher rates. The acquiring authority appealed only against some enhanced awards, while leaving others unchallenged despite being similarly situated. Claimants also appealed for further enhancement. The main legal controversy centered on the State’s selective challenge of Reference Court awards and the proper classification and valuation methodology.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
- Section 4: Notification procedures followed and fully recorded.
- Compensation determination focused on Section 23 parameters.
- No statutory bar for claimants to receive higher compensation than claimed, as per Supreme Court precedent, provided court fees are paid accordingly.
- The Court emphasized strict applicability of principles for classification of land as dry or irrigated, requiring actual evidence of irrigation and crop pattern (such as 7/12 extracts).
- Valuation of trees supported by court’s acceptance of expert evidence in the absence of rebuttal, in line with Supreme Court guidelines.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions detailed; the judgment is a single judge, cohesive opinion.
Procedural Innovations
- Recognition that where the acquiring body accepts Reference Court awards in some cases and does not appeal, it constitutes a conclusive bar to contest in identically situated cases due to the principle of anti-discriminatory State action.
- Mandate that courts must grant compensation supported by evidence even if claim is for a lower amount, subject to court fee rules.
- Systematic acceptance of joint evidence and expert reports on tree valuation in absence of rebuttal, foreclosing procedural challenge in future similar scenarios.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reiterates and applies established Supreme Court law on anti-discrimination by the State in compensation appeals and the right to higher compensation if supported by evidence.