Bombay High Court holds that a state or its instrumentality cannot challenge enhanced compensation in some land acquisition matters while acquiescing to identical awards in others; establishes that such selective appeals by the acquiring body are discriminatory. The judgment follows Supreme Court guidance, reaffirms existing legal principle, and provides binding precedent for land acquisition disputes—particularly concerning uniform treatment in award challenges and determining compensation for seasonal irrigation and tree valuation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/1705/2025 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT DIV. 1 AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs PANDIT GANGU RATHOD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030125632020 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench, Single Judge (Justice Shailesh P. Brahme) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition / Compensation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the State/acquiring body cannot adopt a “pick and choose” attitude by appealing against Reference Court awards in some similarly situated cases while acquiescing in others; such discriminatory action is impermissible and is bindingly prohibited by Supreme Court judgment. The Reference Court’s method of compensation, awarding Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land, is upheld. Mere existence of a well does not make land permanently irrigated in the absence of corroborating evidence (such as 7/12 extract or crop pattern). Valuation of trees as per expert report, when not rebutted by acquiring body and with joint measurement reflecting existence of trees, should be accepted (to the extent of 80% of valuer’s estimation as per Supreme Court guidance). Limiting compensation due to a claimant’s restricted claim is erroneous—entitlement must be determined independent of pleadings if evidence warrants. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
In group of 49 land acquisition appeals relating to Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, Aurangabad, the acquiring body (Government/GMIDC) selectively appealed Reference Court awards in 17 cases while not challenging identical awards in 15 others (where only claimants appealed for more). Reference Court had enhanced compensation for land and trees, using sale instances and expert valuation, and treated certain lands as dry and others as seasonally irrigated. Evidence related to status of land and existence/valuation of trees was led by claimants, with no rebuttal from the State. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited before Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar ((2018) 4 AIRBomR 554) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment establishes that the acquiring body (State or its instrumentality) cannot pursue appeals selectively in land acquisition matters when it has acquiesced to identical awards in other connected cases arising from the same acquisition proceedings.
- Reaffirms that discriminatory conduct by the State in litigation is prohibited and will not be countenanced by courts following the Supreme Court’s binding guidance.
- Clarifies that land will only be classified as irrigated (even seasonally) if there is substantiated evidence—such as wells and corroborative documents; mere existence of a well does not automatically convert land to “irrigated” category for compensation.
- Holds that even if claimants restrict their prayer/claim amount, if they are otherwise entitled to higher compensation by law and on evidence, they should receive it (subject to payment of deficit court fee), overruling technical objections based on limitation of pleadings.
- Confirms that the court may accept an expert’s valuation of trees (up to 80% in accordance with Supreme Court precedent) if the acquiring body does not provide any rebuttal or counter evidence, and the existence of trees is corroborated by joint measurement.
- The judgment also affirms that reference courts’ approach to enhancement must be evidence-based, but State’s omission to produce evidence will weigh against it.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed that the acquiring body, in a group of 49 appeals from the same acquisition process, filed appeals only against some Reference Court awards while accepting others, which is discriminatory. This approach was directly prohibited by the Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors.
- The Court held the State/acquiring body cannot ‘pick and choose’ among similarly situated claimants for the purpose of challenging enhanced compensation—it must act fairly and uniformly or not at all.
- For compensation, the Reference Court’s enhancement from Rs. 1,200/- per Are to Rs. 5,600/- (dry lands) and up to Rs. 8,400/- (seasonally irrigated) was found to be based on proper sale exemplars and credible evidence. Higher rates for “permanently irrigated” lands were denied, as claimants failed to produce required supporting evidence (7/12 extracts/crop records).
- The Court cited Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) v. State of Maharashtra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal v. State of Maharashtra to confirm its power to grant compensation above the amount claimed if justified on evidence.
- On trees, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s Chinda Fakira Patil ruling, holding that 80% of the expert valuer’s assessment is a reasonable basis where no rebuttal is provided by the State, and the reference court’s approach in this regard was proper.
- Cited and distinguished the Bombay High Court’s earlier ruling regarding valuer registration as irrelevant, since, in this case, no objection or cross-examination was raised on the valuer’s competence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- Reference Court committed jurisdictional error by restricting compensation claims; claimants were entitled to higher amounts (“more rates”).
- Adequate evidence existed to treat lands with a source of water as irrigated; pattern of crop is not decisive.
- Compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 11,200/- per Are where wells existed.
- Tree valuation by expert should be accepted as acquiring body provided no rebuttal.
- General claim for enhancement of land and tree compensation.
Respondent (Acquiring Body):
- Rate fixed by Reference Court is excessive; Rs. 1,200/- per Are is “modest” and appropriate.
- No credible material to justify enhancement to Rs. 5,600/- or higher; sale exemplars unreliable.
- Expert tree valuation is fictitious, prepared without proper notice or process, and not credible; valuer lacked requisite qualifications.
- In some appeals, lands wrongly treated as irrigated despite absence of supporting records (7/12 extract/crop pattern).
- Claimants estopped from seeking more compensation if they limited their claims in pleadings.
Factual Background
Land belonging to various claimants at village Anad, Soigaon Taluka, Aurangabad District was acquired for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project. Possession was taken in February 2011; notification under Section 4 was issued in May 2011 and published in June 2011. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a common award in September 2012, offering Rs. 1,200 per Are for land. Dissatisfied, claimants sought references, after which the Reference Court enhanced compensation for land and trees based on sale exemplars and expert valuation. The acquiring body filed appeals against Reference Court awards in 17 instances but acquiesced in others from the same acquisition. The present judgment addresses all 49 connected appeals involving both claimants and the acquiring body.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act: Notification and acquisitions as per procedure.
- Consideration given to classification of land as “dry,” “seasonally irrigated,” and “permanently irrigated”; Court clarified that land status for compensation depends on evidence (e.g., 7/12 extract/crop pattern), not merely presence of wells.
- Application of Supreme Court (Chinda Fakira Patil) principle for valuing trees: 80% of expert’s assessment to be considered when not rebutted.
- Cited legal bar on discriminatory state action, grounded in constitutional equality principles.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court considered “letters of acquiescence” by the acquiring body, confirming non-challenge to certain awards in identical cases as relevant evidence of “pick and choose” litigation strategy.
- Held that where claimants limited their claim but evidence proved entitlement to higher compensation, the court has jurisdiction to award amounts exceeding the pleaded sum, subject to deficit court fee, as per Supreme Court precedent.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment aligns with and applies Supreme Court precedent (Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. The Chief Engineer & Ors.; Chinda Fakira Patil).