The Bombay High Court reiterates that acquiring authorities cannot selectively appeal enhanced land compensation awards when similar awards are accepted in related cases, following the Supreme Court’s prohibition against discriminatory conduct by state instrumentalities. The Court further clarifies evidentiary standards for proving the nature of acquired land and the valuation of trees, affirming Reference Court methodology and principles as binding for subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3530/2022 of VATSALABAI MOHAN RATHOD Vs THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 THR THE GMIDC, AURANGABAD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030021122022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (Acquiring Body Appeals); Claimants’ Appeals/Petitions Partly Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench, Single Judge (Shaileish P. Brahme, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition, Compensation, Civil Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The acquiring authority is prohibited from selectively challenging enhanced compensation awards in land acquisition cases where similar awards have been accepted in other matters, as doing so constitutes impermissible discrimination. The “pick and choose” policy by the State or its agencies in accepting or appealing Reference Court awards in identical circumstances offends principles of equality and non-arbitrariness, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. For classification of land as irrigated, bare assertion or the mere existence of a well does not suffice—cogent documentary or oral evidence is required, like 7/12 extracts or proof of crops. As regards valuation of trees, a private expert’s report—if not controverted by the acquiring authority through rebuttal evidence or cross-examination—can be relied upon to the extent of 80%, per Supreme Court precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | 49 appeals arose from compensation for land acquired for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The SLAO granted uniform rates for dry and irrigated lands. Dissatisfied landowners sought enhanced compensation; the Reference Court increased the rate, especially relying on a key sale instance, and used private valuer reports for trees. The acquiring authorities challenged the Reference Court’s enhanced awards in 17 cases but not in 15 others with identical facts. Both quantum and classification of land (dry/irrigated) and tree valuation were disputed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra; land acquisition authorities; reference courts within Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; tribunals; Supreme Court consideration on similar issues. |
| Overrules | None explicitly overruled; affirms Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents. |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL) v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar—distinguished on facts and valuer registration. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that public authorities cannot pursue appeals against enhanced land compensation in only some cases while accepting similar awards in others; such selective challenge is discriminatory and impermissible.
- Clarifies evidentiary thresholds: mere claim or presence of a well is insufficient to establish land as irrigated—contemporaneous records/crop extracts needed.
- Binds lower courts to accept uncontroverted expert valuer reports regarding trees to the extent of 80%, unless effectively challenged.
- Expands on the entitlement of claimants to higher compensation, even beyond pleaded amounts, upon payment of deficit court fees.
- Accepts government circulars and joint measurements as binding for tree valuation when corroborated.
- Practical guideline for authorities: uniform approach required in handling similarly situated cases to avoid adverse judicial comment and order.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first found facts showing the acquiring authority appealed Reference Court awards in only some cases, while accepting similar compensation in others, amounting to a “pick and choose” approach.
- Applying the Supreme Court’s dicta from Shivappa Etc. Vs. Chief Engineer, the Court held that such conduct violates non-discrimination principles; where the State accepts a Reference Court award for one party, it cannot litigate the same issue against another similarly placed party.
- The Reference Court’s enhanced rates, based on a sale exemplar and reasoned analysis, were found unassailable absent any rebuttal evidence from the acquiring body.
- For the classification of land as irrigated, the Court insisted on substantive evidence—finding the mere existence of a well insufficient, and supporting the Reference Court’s insistence on 7/12 extracts or crop evidence.
- Relied on Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) for valuing trees at 80% of private expert’s valuation when not materially challenged by the acquiring authority.
- Considered and distinguished the PWD v. Damodar Ramnath Bom HC judgment on valuer registration, finding no such challenge here.
- Held that once entitlement to higher compensation is established, courts must award it even if claim(s) were initially restricted, subject to payment of requisite court fees per Ambya Kalya Mhatra.
- Drawn from these legal principles, the Court dismissed the acquiring body’s appeals and partly allowed the claimants’ cross-appeals and direct appeals for enhanced compensation where justified by evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred by unduly restricting compensation; claimants were entitled to higher rates.
- Courts overlooked evidence (existence of wells) proving irrigation, relying too heavily on crop pattern rather than capacity for irrigation.
- Sought the adoption of expert valuer’s unchallenged reports for higher valuation of trees.
- Requested full compensation irrespective of original claims upon payment of court fee deficit.
Respondents (Acquiring Body & State):
- Rates fixed by the Reference Court were arbitrary and excessive; no proper basis for enhancement from SLAO’s rate.
- Questioned credibility and impartiality of the claimants’ expert valuer, alleging lack of registration and delayed/afterthought nature of reports.
- Asserted no evidence (such as 7/12 crop records) substantiating claim of irrigated lands.
- Arguments adopted across all appeals; opposed any further enhancement, especially where claimants restricted their claims.
Factual Background
The appeals concerned acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank in Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, Aurangabad District. The SLAO offered uniform compensation rates for dry and irrigated lands on 24.09.2012. Dissatisfied with the award, multiple claimants sought references for enhancement, succeeding in part at the Reference Court based on sale exemplars and private tree valuation reports. However, the acquiring authority selectively appealed Reference Court enhancements in only 17 out of 49 matters—accepting compensation in other, identically situated cases—prompting consideration of discrimination, as well as the sufficiency of evidence regarding land classification and tree valuation.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for notification and assessment of market value at the relevant date.
- Discussed principles governing land classification for compensation—emphasizing the necessity for documentary evidence (e.g., 7/12 extracts) to prove irrigation.
- Clarified law regarding compensation exceeding original claim amounts (subject to payment of deficit court fees).
- Relied on Supreme Court construction of entitlement to compensation and acceptance of expert valuation (Chinda Fakira Patil, Ambya Kalya Mhatra).
Procedural Innovations
- Adopted a consolidated approach for simultaneous hearing and disposal of 49 connected appeals.
- Accepted notional enhancement of compensation in favor of claimants who had restricted their claims, subject to payment of deficit court fees—refining procedure for awards surpassing pleadings.
- Recognized “acquiescence letters” by acquiring authority in some cases as relevant evidence for determination of non-discriminatory practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court principles regarding non-discrimination by State authorities, valuation of trees, and evidentiary burden in land acquisition cases.