The Bombay High Court has clarified that claimants are entitled to receive higher compensation than the amount claimed if the evidence supports such entitlement, irrespective of self-imposed limitations on their claim, provided deficit court fees are paid. The judgment also reaffirms that state authorities cannot discriminate between similarly placed claimants and must follow a uniform approach. This decision affirms settled Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents, serving as binding authority for the valuation of acquired agricultural land and trees in land acquisition matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3892/2019 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD Vs SHANKAR DAMLA JADHAV (DIED) THR LRS JAVAHARLAL AND ORS |
| CNR | HCBM030474502019 |
| Date of Registration | 18-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single bench at Aurangabad |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition; Valuation of compensation for acquired agricultural land and trees |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that courts may award compensation higher than the amount claimed if the entitlement is established by evidence, subject to payment of deficit court fees, and that the restriction in the initial claim does not estop such enhanced compensation. The court also held that state authorities must adopt a uniform approach when contesting or accepting reference awards for similarly situated claimants, and discrimination or “pick and choose” conduct is impermissible. On the methodology of land valuation, the Court approved the use of sale exemplars, granting Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land, with no permanent irrigated land proved. The High Court affirmed that the valuation of trees based on expert report, as accepted by the Reference Court up to 80% and in line with Supreme Court precedent, was correct. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The case arose from acquisition proceedings for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad district. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per Are for various types of land and for trees. Claimants challenged the adequacy, seeking enhancement. The Reference Court increased the compensation, leading to appeals by both the acquiring body and claimants. Evidence, including expert reports and sale exemplars, was presented. Some claims were limited by the claimants themselves. No oral evidence was led by the acquiring body. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court; acquisition authorities outside Maharashtra |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Panaji Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554 (distinguished on facts and expert’s registration) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit reaffirmation that claim restriction by the claimant is not fatal; courts can award compensation above claimed amounts if evidence justifies and deficit court fee is paid.
- State authorities cannot “pick and choose” among similarly placed land acquisition claimants—discriminatory conduct will not be permitted.
- Sale exemplars and contemporaneous evidence guide award of land value (here: Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land; Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land).
- Mere existence of a well is insufficient proof for treating land as permanently irrigated; supporting evidence (such as 7/12 extracts, crop pattern) is necessary.
- Valuation of trees: Expert reports are to be given credence if not effectively rebutted and if supported by joint measurement; application of 80% of such value is affirmed as reasonable.
- Lawyers should ensure that claim documentation does not unnecessarily restrict the quantum sought but also know that courts will go by evidence over the claim’s wording.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court first notes the presence of both appeals by acquiring agencies (17) and by claimants (cross-appeals and enhancement claims), with a common award and similar factual background.
- The Court examines whether restricting a compensation claim blocks enhanced award and answers in the negative, citing Ambya Kalya Mhatra (Supreme Court) and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal (Bombay HC), holding that higher compensation may be granted if justified by evidence, subject to deficit court fee.
- On non-discrimination: The Court refers to Supreme Court precedent (Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer), holding that the state/acquiring body cannot act in a discriminatory fashion—accepting one reference court award but appealing another concerning similarly placed claimants is impermissible.
- Regarding the nature of land (dry/irrigated): The Court upholds the Reference Court’s approach to relying on documentary and oral evidence, including sale exemplars. Pure dry lands with no source of water recorded get one rate, and those with a well but insufficient evidence of permanent irrigation get the seasonal rate; no land qualified as permanently irrigated.
- For tree valuation: The Court upholds reference to the expert valuer’s report where unchallenged, noting that mere objections (such as lack of notice or registration technicalities) are insufficient in absence of contrary evidence. Adopts the Supreme Court’s method (Chinda Fakira Patil) by accepting 80% of valuer’s figure.
- The Court distinguishes the Land Acquisition Officer, PWD case (Bombay HC 2018) as the facts on valuer registration and expert evidence there were materially different.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred by restricting compensation based on claim limitation despite evidence supporting higher rates.
- Existence of irrigation sources (e.g., wells) was not properly considered in classification of land.
- Entitlement to higher rates for lands with a well shown in the award.
- Valuation of trees by SLAO was inadequate and private expert’s report should be accepted given absence of rebuttal evidence.
- Sought further enhancement for land and trees.
Respondent (Acquiring Body):
- Reference Court’s enhanced rate is unreasonable; SLAO’s rate (Rs. 1,200/- per Are) was fair.
- No reliable material on record justifies raising the rate above Rs. 1,200/- per Are; sale exemplars not reliable.
- Private expert’s tree valuation is fictitious, belated, prepared without notice, and untrustworthy.
- Reports in certain individual claims are improbable.
- Expert was not a competent valuer; registration issues were raised.
- Claimants are estopped from requesting more than the amount claimed.
Factual Background
The matter arises from the acquisition of agricultural lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Anad village, Taluka Soigaon, District Aurangabad. Possession was taken in February 2011; notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in May-June 2011. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 1,200/- per Are for land and specified amounts for trees in a common award issued in September 2012. Reference Court enhanced compensation (with rates up to Rs. 10,200/- per Are for irrigated and Rs. 5,600/- for dry lands), referencing sale exemplars and expert evidence on tree valuation. The acquiring body did not lead evidence to rebut the claimants’ expert reports. Both sides appealed—acquiring body to reduce compensation, claimants for further enhancement.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1) (notification), award process, criteria for valuation.
- On compensation: Interpreted to allow award of compensation in excess of sum claimed if evidence and entitlement support such, subject to payment of deficit court fee (supported by Supreme Court and Bombay High Court case law).
- Classification of land (dry, seasonally irrigated, permanently irrigated) must rest on documentary and oral evidence; existence of well alone not determinative.
- Valuation of trees based on joint measurement and expert report, adopting precedent allowing partial (80%) acceptance where no full rebuttal evidence offered.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court clarified that acquiescence (by not appealing a reference court’s judgment in similarly situated cases) leads to a bar on subsequent discrimination by the acquiring body in other parallel cases.
- Adoption and approval of expert reports where the other side fails to rebut, even if technical objections are raised post facto.
- Unification and disposal of 49 appeals and cross-appeals by a single comprehensive judgment to ensure uniformity and avoid discriminatory outcomes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed: The judgment affirms existing legal precedent regarding (i) award of enhanced compensation over claimed amount, (ii) non-discriminatory conduct by state authorities, and (iii) methodology for valuation of trees and classification of land.