The Bombay High Court has held that the State (or its instrumentalities) cannot adopt a ‘pick and choose’ approach by selectively appealing some Reference Court awards in land acquisition matters while acquiescing to others under similar circumstances. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court dismissed all such appeals filed by the acquiring body and clarified compensation principles for categorisation, valuation, and enhancement claims. This judgment is binding on subordinate courts within Maharashtra and has persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/528/2020 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs MEHTAB MAGAN CHAVAN AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030047202020 |
| Date of Registration | 12-02-2020 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (in respect of acquiring body’s appeals); PARTLY ALLOWED (in respect of claimants’ appeals) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Judge: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive in other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition Law (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
49 appeals arose from acquisition for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, Anad village, Aurangabad. Reference Court enhanced compensation over SLAO rates. The acquiring body appealed selectively in 17 cases, while accepting awards in 15 others with identical facts, leading to claimants’ arguments of discrimination. Issues included rate of land (dry/irrigated), acceptance of valuer’s report on trees, and scope for enhancement even if claim was restricted earlier. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court of India |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar, (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554 – distinguished on facts about valuer’s registration |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that State authorities cannot selectively appeal Reference Court awards; the “pick and choose” approach is discriminatory and barred by law if awards are identical or similarly situated.
- Even where claimants restrict their compensation claims to a certain amount before the Reference Court, courts must award higher compensation if proved entitled, subject to deficit court fee.
- Mere existence of a well does not by itself establish land as “irrigated”; claimants must adduce proper evidence such as crop pattern or 7/12 extracts.
- Where expert valuer’s evidence on tree valuation is unchallenged or uncontested by acquiring body, courts will accept the valuation (up to 80% as per Supreme Court precedent).
- Lawyers representing claimants in land acquisition cases should ensure production of clear, cogent evidence of land irrigation status and tree numbers.
- Acquiring bodies must maintain uniformity in legal position across similarly placed claimants to avoid successful discrimination arguments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court canvassed that in many appeals the acquiring body had accepted and not challenged the Reference Court award, issuing acquiescence letters in 15 matters; in 17, it preferred appeals, despite similar circumstances.
- Citing Supreme Court judgment in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer, the court held it is impermissible for a State or its instrumentalities to “pick and choose” which awards to accept and which to challenge when claimants are identically placed, as it violates equality.
- On compensation, the Reference Court relied on the best available sale exemplars (13.01.2011) and enhanced rates to Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land (with an additional 10% for certain cases), finding these rates proper in light of the evidence led.
- The court found error in Reference Court’s refusal to grant higher compensation merely because claimants restricted their pleadings; Supreme Court and coordinate bench precedents require courts to award what is proved, subject to deficit court fee.
- On land categorisation, without material evidence (such as 7/12 extracts), all lands except six were found to be seasonally irrigated rather than permanently irrigated or dry.
- For tree valuation, the court followed Chinda Fakira Patil (2011), holding that the expert’s report is to be accepted (up to 80%) unless specifically and effectively rebutted, which had not occurred.
- Objections to the valuer’s credentials were rejected because no evidence or cross-examination questioning competence or credibility was adduced by the acquiring body.
- Distinction was made with the case of Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho, as in that case the valuer’s registration did not qualify, which was not the situation here.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- The Reference Court erroneously restricted compensation to claimed amounts when higher rates were established by evidence.
- Failure to properly treat lands as irrigated where evidence of wells and irrigation facilities existed.
- Entitled to higher rates (up to Rs. 11,200/- per Are where a well exists).
- Valuation of trees by private expert was correct and acquiring body offered no rebuttal or evidence; expert’s report should be accepted.
- Sought further enhancement of land and tree compensation beyond Reference Court’s award.
Respondent (Acquiring Body):
- Reference Court rates were unreasonably high; Rs. 1,200/- per Are (SLAO rate) was correct.
- No reliable evidence on record to justify increase to Rs. 5,600/- per Are or higher; alleged sale instances unreliable.
- Expert’s valuation for trees was fictitious, prepared without proper notice, and unreliable, particularly in certain appeals.
- Valuer lacked required registration; his evidence should be discarded.
- In some cases, claimants failed to produce 7/12 extracts to evidence irrigation or pattern of crop.
- Where claimants restricted their claims to a particular figure, they should be estopped from seeking higher compensation.
Factual Background
This case concerned 49 appeals arising from the acquisition of agricultural land for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Anad village, Aurangabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land, which the Reference Court enhanced significantly (up to Rs. 8,400/- per Are for irrigated/seasonally irrigated, and Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land) based largely on sale exemplars and claimants’ expert evidence. The acquiring body appealed selectively in 17 of 49 cases, despite having acquiesced in others. Major issues arose on categorisation of land, adequacy and method of tree valuation, and whether compensation should be limited by pleadings or based on actual entitlement proved.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1) (notification), award process, and reference to court invoked.
- On compensation enhancement, the court construed statutory duty to provide just and fair compensation in accordance with best sale exemplars, regardless of claim restriction, citing Supreme Court law (Ambya Kalya Mhatra).
- For categorisation of land, the court required evidence (7/12 extracts, crop pattern) to treat land as irrigated.
- On valuation for trees, referred to Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) for legal standard: if expert evidence is not rebutted or discredited, at least 80% of claimed value must be awarded.
- Noted that all legal principles applied were supported by the Land Acquisition Act and binding precedents.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment directly follows and applies binding precedent from the Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors (2023) on the impermissibility of “pick and choose” appeals in land acquisition.