Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reaffirms that the State/acquiring authority cannot discriminately pursue appeals on similar land acquisition awards, following Supreme Court guidance in Shivappa v. Chief Engineer. Judgment clarifies compensation classification between dry and seasonally irrigated land, and affirms accepted procedures for valuation of trees. Stands as binding precedent on valuation and procedural equality in land acquisition disputes within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3624/2022 of UKHA HARLAL RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS NIVRUTI AND ANR Vs THE EX. ENGINEER, MIONR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030043592022 |
| Date of Registration | 28-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad |
| Bench | Single Judge – Justice Shailesh P. Brahme |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Bombay High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition/Compensation (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the acquiring body cannot discriminate among claimants by appealing only in selected awards where circumstances are identical, as this amounts to patent discrimination prohibited by the Supreme Court in Shivappa v. Chief Engineer. Compensation must be awarded at Rs. 5600 per Are for dry land and Rs. 8400 per Are for seasonally irrigated land, based on evidence and absence thereof on permanent irrigation. Where claimants restricted claims to a lower figure, the court clarified that legal entitlement is not limited by pleadings if justified by evidence. For valuation of trees, the Court affirmed that expert evidence and joint measurement suffice where not rebutted, following Chindha Fakira Patil. Procedural consistency and non-arbitrariness are thus mandatory in land compensation appeals. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Doctrine of equality/non-discrimination in governmental litigation; evidentiary burdens in land classification and tree valuation under Land Acquisition jurisprudence |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Group of 49 appeals arising from acquisition for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, village Anad. Reference Court enhanced compensation above S.L.A.O. award. State/acquiring body appealed in 17 cases but accepted awards in others with similar facts. Dispute over correct land classification and tree valuation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) |
| Persuasive For | Other Benches of the Bombay High Court, and potentially persuasive for courts in other jurisdictions addressing similar land acquisition valuation issues |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The State/acquiring authority cannot adopt a ‘pick and choose’ approach for filing appeals against reference court awards where claimants stand similarly situated.
- Discriminatory conduct by the State in prosecuting only certain appeals violates binding Supreme Court authority (Shivappa v. Chief Engineer).
- Even if a claimant restricts their claim to a lower amount, the court may award compensation at the entitled rate based on evidence, subject to deficit court fees.
- Mere existence of a well does not constitute permanent irrigation for compensation classification; claimants must furnish appropriate evidence (such as 7/12 extracts and cropping patterns).
- Tree valuation by an expert is valid if not rebutted and supported by joint measurement, and need not be discarded on technical objections unless substantiated by evidence.
- Judgment consolidates and clarifies the methodology for distinguishing between dry and seasonally irrigated land for the purpose of fixing compensation in land acquisition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court opened by recognizing that 49 appeals arose from the same acquisition and compensation process, yet the acquiring body chose to file appeals in only 17 of them — identical in facts and law to several unchallenged awards.
- Citing Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312), it was held that such selective challenge by the State/acquiring body constitutes discrimination and cannot be permitted. State instrumentalities must maintain consistency and non-arbitrariness in their litigation approach.
- On the question of compensation calculation, the Court observed that the Reference Court was correct in its methodology: Rs. 5600 per Are for dry lands, Rs. 8400 per Are for seasonally irrigated lands, based on evidence adduced regarding water sources, and rejected claims for permanent irrigation due to lack of corroborating evidence (such as 7/12 extracts).
- When claimants restricted their claims to lower rates, court clarified—relying on Ambya Kalya Mhatra (Supra)— that legal entitlement is based on evidence on record rather than self-imposed limitation, and deficit court fees can be paid if entitlement is higher.
- On tree valuation, the expert’s report (Dr. Vishnu Patil) was accepted, as it was supported by a joint measurement. The acquiring body filed no rebuttal evidence, and mere procedural technicalities as to valuer registration were not sufficient to discard the evidence.
- The Court followed Supreme Court guidance in Chinda Fakira Patil regarding acceptance of expert valuation for trees to the extent of 80%, confirming the Reference Court’s approach on this issue.
- Citation to a Bombay High Court decision (Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar) was found distinguishable on facts; in the instant case, the valuer’s competence was not seriously challenged or doubted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- The Reference Court erred in restricting the rate to the claimed figure when claimants were entitled to more.
- Available evidence of wells was overlooked in treating land as irrigated.
- Claimants entitled to higher compensation (Rs. 11,200 per Are) where wells existed.
- Valuation of trees was inadequate; the acquiring body neither led evidence nor rebutted claimants’ evidence or expert’s valuation.
- Sought enhancement of compensation for land and trees.
Respondent (Acquiring Body/State):
- Reference Court fixed unreasonably high rates; S.L.A.O.’s rate of Rs. 1,200 per Are was justified and reasonable.
- No reliable material on record to justify enhancement; sale instances relied on by claimants were unreliable.
- Valuer’s (claimants’ expert) reports were afterthoughts, unsupported and should be discarded for lack of reliability/official registration.
- Supported treating lands as dry, not irrigated, in absence of documentary corroboration (7/12 extracts/crop patterns).
- In some appeals, pointed to lack of proof of irrigation despite claimants’ contention.
Factual Background
A group of 49 appeals arose from the acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank in Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, District Aurangabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 1,200 per Are for dry land. Various claimants, dissatisfied with the award, sought reference. The Reference Court enhanced compensation based on certain sale deeds and expert valuation of trees, leading to further cross-appeals by both the claimants (seeking more compensation) and the acquiring body (challenging enhancement) only in a proportion of the cases, while acquiescing in similar cases.
Statutory Analysis
- Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and published; further proceedings and award followed under the Act.
- The Court interpreted the Act in the context of compensation: classification between dry and irrigated land is determined by evidence, particularly existence of irrigation sources; mere existence of a well is not conclusive without corroborative evidence such as 7/12 extracts or cropping pattern.
- The Court affirmed the principle that legal entitlement under the Land Acquisition Act is not fettered by restrictive claims in pleadings, subject to payment of necessary court fees.
- For tree valuation, the judgment followed Supreme Court guidelines on acceptance of expert reports where no rebuttal evidence is forthcoming.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded. The judgment delivered is by the Single Judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court decided a large group of related appeals by a common judgment for judicial economy and consistency.
- It emphasized that acquiescence (letters of acceptance by acquiring authority) in similarly situated matters ought to bind the State’s conduct in other analogous appeals to prevent arbitrariness.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents on non-discrimination and land valuation procedures affirmed.