The Bombay High Court has reiterated that State authorities cannot discriminate among similarly situated landowners by adopting a “pick and choose” approach in appeals against compensation enhancement awards under the Land Acquisition Act. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that such selective challenges by the acquiring body are impermissible and confirmed the Reference Court’s approach to compensation rates and valuation of trees. This ruling is binding on subordinate courts and has broad significance for land acquisition matters in Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/1704/2025 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT DIV. 1 AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs BHAGCHAND SANDU RATHOD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030125682020 |
| 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 |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition law—compensation for compulsory acquisition, judicial review of compensation, discrimination in appeals, valuation of trees |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the acquiring authority (State or instrumentality) cannot adopt a “pick and choose” or discriminatory approach by challenging compensation awards in some cases while accepting them in others among similarly situated landowners. Such conduct is contrary to law as laid down by the Supreme Court. On compensation determination, the Court upheld the Reference Court’s use of contemporaneous sale exemplars and expert evidence but clarified that the presence of a well alone does not automatically render land “permanently irrigated.” It also affirmed that claimants are entitled to compensation even exceeding their pleaded amounts, subject to payment of additional court fees. For valuation of trees, the Court accepted the methodology of relying on joint measurement and expert valuation, with 80% of the claimed value being allowed following Supreme Court precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional prohibition against discrimination, emphasized equal treatment of similarly situated claimants, and reaffirmed evidentiary requirements for compensation and valuation. The principle that limitation in claim is not a bar to awarding higher compensation (on payment of additional court fee) was followed. The methodology for valuation of horticultural assets was based on Supreme Court authority. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeals stemmed from acquisition of agricultural land for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Village Anad, Aurangabad, under the Land Acquisition Act. The SLAO awarded Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land in a common award. Many claimants sought reference, leading to enhancement by the Reference Court to Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land, and higher rates for irrigated/seasonally irrigated lands, with compensation for trees based on joint measurement and expert valuation. The acquiring body filed appeals in some cases, but accepted Reference Court awards in others where similarly situated. Claimants also filed cross-appeals for enhancement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court (on the principle of anti-discrimination in land acquisition compensation appeals) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that State/acquiring authorities cannot challenge enhanced compensation awards selectively among similarly situated landowners, as this is discriminatory and legally impermissible.
- Clarifies that even if a claimant has restricted their compensation claim to a particular figure, courts can award higher compensation if justified by evidence, provided deficit court fees are paid.
- Holds that mere existence of a well does not automatically categorize land as “permanently irrigated” absent corroborative evidence such as cropping patterns or 7/12 extracts.
- Affirms that tree valuation is to be based on joint measurement and expert evidence, allowing 80% of the claimed value unless rebutted by the acquiring body.
- Lawyers representing land-acquired claimants can cite this judgment to resist arbitrary or selective State appeals, and to advocate for evidence-based, non-discriminatory compensation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the acquiring body could appeal only in selected cases where the Reference Court had enhanced compensation, despite having acquiesced in similar awards in other cases arising from the same acquisition proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. The Chief Engineer and others, the Court held that such selective or “pick and choose” appellate practice by the State or its instrumentalities is impermissible and amounts to discrimination.
- The methodology for fixing compensation was scrutinized. The Reference Court’s reliance on sale exemplars and expert valuers’ evidence was found justified. However, the Court accepted that while sale instance of Gut No. 129 could be relied upon for enhancement, mere existence of a well did not suffice to categorize land as “permanently irrigated”—supporting documents (such as crop records) were required, which were absent.
- The principle that a court may grant higher compensation than claimed (subject to payment of deficit court fees) was reaffirmed (Ambya Kalya Mhatra, Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal).
- For valuation of trees, the Court applied Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787, allowing 80% of expert valuation, and found the evidence of the claimants’ valuer to be credible in the absence of any rebuttal by the acquiring body.
- Objections to the valuer’s qualifications and procedure were rejected, as no such challenge was established in evidence or cross-examination.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Acquiring Body):
- The Reference Court’s enhanced rate is unreasonable and unsupported by the record; the SLAO’s valuation should have been maintained.
- Challenged reliability of sale exemplars and the expert valuer’s methods, arguing that reports were unsubstantiated and, in cases, produced after delays or without appropriate notice.
- Contended that claimants failed to produce documentary evidence (such as 7/12 extracts) to prove irrigation or crop pattern.
- Objected to claimants seeking compensation higher than their own claims, submitting that they should be estopped from seeking any further enhancement.
Respondents (Landholders):
- Reference Court erred by limiting compensation in some cases to figures claimed by the claimant, rather than evidence-backed entitlements.
- The presence of irrigation facilities (wells) was not properly considered; land should be categorized and compensated as irrigated.
- The SLAO’s compensation for land and trees was inadequate; the expert valuer’s reports (which were based on joint measurements and site visits) should have been accepted.
- Sought enhancement of compensation and acceptance of expert valuation of trees.
Factual Background
Arising out of the acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Village Anad, Aurangabad District, the case involved multiple claimants who challenged the original award of Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land granted by the SLAO on 24.09.2012. Possession was taken in February 2011 and land acquisition notification was issued in May-June 2011. Claimants sought references and succeeded in obtaining enhanced compensation from the Reference Court, which was contested by the acquiring body via selective appeals, while in several cases, similar awards were accepted without contest. The appeals before the High Court involved both claimants’ cross-appeals for further enhancement and the acquiring body’s selective appeals against enhanced awards.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (procedure for notification and acquisition).
- It interpreted the method for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, including reliance on recent sales, crop pattern, and irrigation records.
- Emphasized that judicial determination of compensation must be based on substantive evidence and statutory principles, not on arbitrary or discriminatory administration action.
- Cited the provision that courts can grant compensation higher than the amount claimed if evidence supports it, subject to payment of additional court fees.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court treated all 49 connected appeals together for efficient, consistent adjudication, recognizing the commonality of issues and facts.
- Directed the drawing of individual awards in accordance with the clarified compensation rates and factual findings for each appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court principles on anti-discrimination in governmental litigation and compensation under the Land Acquisition Act were followed and reaffirmed.