The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed existing Supreme Court precedent that prohibits discriminatory appeals by the State (or its instrumentalities) in land acquisition compensation matters. The Court clarifies the applicable compensation rates for dry and seasonally irrigated lands, and provides binding authority on the treatment of valuation evidence for trees, solidifying uniform principles for future land acquisition cases in Maharashtra.
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, Aurangabad Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all land acquisition matters within Maharashtra |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition, Compensation, Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Bombay High Court held that the State (or its instrumentalities) is barred from pursuing a ‘pick and choose’ policy by selectively appealing against Reference Court awards related to land compensation, as this constitutes discrimination and violates Supreme Court dictum. The rate for compensation must be uniform, and where no superior evidence is led, reliance should be placed on uncontroverted expert reports to the extent of 80% (as per Supreme Court guidance), provided joint measurement supports the claim. Claimants are entitled to compensation even beyond their pleaded amount, subject to deficit court fees, if entitlement is shown. The pattern of cropping is not decisive for irrigation status; existence of a well alone justifies treating land as seasonally irrigated, not permanently irrigated, absent evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Group of 49 appeals arising from acquisition for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, village Anad, Dist. Aurangabad. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act issued 27.05.2011. Compensation awarded by SLAO at Rs. 1,200 per Are for dry land; Reference Court enhanced rates based on sale exemplar to Rs. 5,600 per Are (dry) and Rs. 8,400-Rs. 10,200 per Are (irrigated). The State challenged some Reference Court awards but not others. No oral evidence led by State; claimants led expert evidence for land and trees. Letters of acquiescence admitted by the State in non-appealed matters. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Maharashtra dealing with land acquisition and compensation under the Land Acquisition Act |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in matters of uniform compensation and approach to valuation evidence |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554 (based on facts re: valuer’s registration and evidence) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court expressly prohibits ‘pick and choose’ approaches to appeals by State authorities in land acquisition compensation cases arising from common acquisition processes.
- Where the State accepts Reference Court awards for some claimants, it cannot contest them for similarly situated claimants in the same acquisition, else it violates non-discrimination.
- Even if a claimant restricts the pleaded amount, the court is empowered to award higher compensation upon proof, subject to court fee.
- Expert valuation of trees must be accepted to the extent of 80% where the acquiring authority has not led rebuttal evidence and joint measurement supports claimant’s case.
- Mere existence of a well in the land can support a finding of seasonal irrigation, but not permanent irrigation, absent further material.
- Pattern of cropping is not decisive; classification as seasonally irrigated or dry will depend on available evidence.
- The Court clarifies correct calculation and uniform application of compensation rates for both dry and seasonally irrigated land.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the State selectively filed appeals against some Reference Court awards but not others from an identical acquisition process. Relying on Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer (2023), it held such a ‘pick and choose’ policy is discriminatory and legally impermissible.
- The Reference Court arrived at rates for dry (Rs. 5,600 per Are) and seasonally irrigated (Rs. 8,400 per Are) land based on credible sale exemplars and unrebutted claimant evidence. The appeals by the State could not demonstrate any error in the Reference Court’s methodology.
- The Reference Court’s refusal to award compensation beyond restricted claims was found erroneous. On authority of Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, the High Court clarified that entitlement to higher compensation subsists despite limitations in a claimant’s pleadings, subject to payment of deficit court fees.
- On classification of land for irrigation, the Court held that mere presence of a well justifies treating land as seasonally irrigated and not as permanently irrigated, especially where there is no evidence of continuous cropping or supporting documentation (7/12 extracts).
- Regarding valuation of trees, the Court accepted expert reports to the extent of 80% (as per Supreme Court in Chinda Fakira Patil), since there was no rebuttal evidence and the valuation was supported by joint measurement records. The Bombay High Court decision in Land Acquisition Officer, Altinho was distinguished as the present matter had no challenge to the expert’s credentials, unlike in that case.
- Thus, all State appeals were dismissed, Reference Court compensation rates were largely upheld with clarifications, and claimants entitled to enhanced compensation beyond their pleaded sums where justified.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants)
- Reference Court committed error of jurisdiction by restricting compensation to lower figures despite entitlement to higher rates.
- Irrigation status should be recognized based on existence of wells, not merely pattern of cropping.
- Compensation for lands should be increased to reflect existence of irrigation infrastructure.
- Valuation of trees by claimants’ expert was adequate and should have been fully accepted given lack of rebuttal by acquiring body.
- Sought overall enhancement of compensation for lands and trees.
Respondent (Acquiring Body)
- Reference Court awarded unreasonably high rates; SLAO’s (Rs. 1,200 per Are) should be upheld as more appropriate.
- No reliable evidence to justify enhancement; sale exemplars for increased compensation unreliable.
- Claimants’ expert valuation of trees was fictitious, unreliable, and unsupported by substantial evidence; no proper inspection was conducted.
- Claimants unable to provide 7/12 extracts to substantiate irrigation or cropping pattern—cannot treat land as irrigated.
- Some lands asserted as irrigated did not have any well; claimants should be estopped from enhancement based on restricted claims.
- Competence of claimants’ expert valuer contested; report/evidence should be discarded.
Factual Background
The case concerns 49 first appeals arising out of land acquired for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, District Aurangabad. Possession was taken in February 2011, with a Section 4 notification issued in May 2011 under the Land Acquisition Act and a common award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.09.2012, fixing compensation at Rs. 1,200 per Are for dry land. The Reference Court, on references by aggrieved landowners, enhanced the compensation based on sale exemplars and evidence including expert valuation of trees. The acquiring authority (State) filed appeals against awards in some cases but not others, leading to claims of discrimination. Claimants sought further enhancement, including classification of land as irrigated based on existence of wells.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, Section 4: Notification procedures were recounted as foundational to the acquisition.
- Compensation Provisions: No section was “read down” or “read in”, but the statutory process for compensation enhancement on reference was followed.
- The Court interpreted that compensation rates must be applied uniformly based on evidence; procedural bars do not prevent awarding entitlement amounts, subject to proper court fee.
- No constitutional provisions were invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reinforced that even if claimants restrict compensation claims to a particular sum, courts may award higher compensation if entitlement is shown, subject to payment of deficit court fees, as per Supreme Court authority.
- The practice of the acquiring body issuing letters of acquiescence in some cases and challenging awards in others arising from the same acquisition was scrutinized and prohibited.
- Uniform orders and corrections were made across all 49 related matters through this common judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s rulings on non-discrimination in State land acquisition appeals and principles for compensation based on expert valuation evidence are expressly affirmed.