The Bombay High Court holds that claimants are entitled to the full compensation to which they are legally entitled, even if their original claim was restricted to a lower amount—subject to court fee payment; and the State/acquiring body cannot adopt a discriminatory “pick and choose” approach in challenging awards in similar circumstances. This judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent and is binding on subordinate courts and authorities handling land acquisition compensation disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
FA/3956/2022 of SANTOSH SHESHMAL CHAVAN Vs THE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER CNR HCBM030042132022 |
| Date of Registration | 19-12-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature |
DISMISSED (for appeals by acquiring body) PARTLY ALLOWED (for appeals/cross-appeals by claimants) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench – Justice Shailesh P. Brahme |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within Maharashtra; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Affirms: Supreme Court—Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and Others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312) Ambya Kalya Mhatra v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625) |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition (Land Acquisition Act, compensation, valuation principles) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that once entitlement to higher compensation is established, claimants should receive the amount regardless of any prior claim restriction, subject to payment of deficit court fees. The Reference Court erred in denying full compensation on the basis of claim restriction. The State or acquiring body is precluded from “pick and choose” litigation—if it accepts awards for some claimants, it cannot challenge similar awards for others, as such conduct is discriminatory. The proper standard for determining irrigated/dry land (requiring supporting evidence), as well as tree valuation (accepting expert evidence absent rebuttal), was clarified and applied. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court followed Supreme Court guidance on prevention of State discrimination among similarly situated claimants. It reasoned that restriction of claim does not bar legal entitlement to higher compensation. The evidentiary obligation for showing land irrigation status and tree existence/valuation was clarified, and expert evidence is accepted in the absence of credible rebuttal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Land was acquired for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank. The SLAO awarded compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per Are (dry land category). Reference Court enhanced rates, relying on sale exemplars. The acquiring body challenged increases in 17 appeals, while 15 were left unchallenged. Parties disputed land classification as “dry” or “seasonally irrigated,” and the appropriate rate for tree compensation. Both sides filed appeals; the Court took cognizance of the discriminatory conduct of the acquiring body. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Maharashtra; applicable to similar land acquisition disputes involving compensation, land categorization, and tree valuation. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court, particularly on the issues of claim restriction and State conduct in challenging awards. |
| Overrules | None specified as overruled. |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar; (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554 (on valuer registration/evidence, as facts were distinguishable). |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that claimants are entitled to actual legal entitlement for land acquisition compensation, irrespective of lower claim figures pleaded originally, subject to payment of court fees.
- The State or acquiring body cannot selectively challenge awards in similar fact situations; discrimination between claimants is not permitted.
- Sale exemplars and expert evidence must be sufficiently reliable—mere existence of a well is not by itself conclusive for classification as irrigated land unless supported by evidence.
- Private valuer’s reports, in the absence of rebuttal or cross-examination targeting credibility, are generally accepted for tree valuation (with appropriate deductions if warranted).
- Reference Courts must apply rates consistently and cannot reduce compensation merely due to a claimant’s self-restricted figure, if statutory entitlement is higher.
- Lawyers can use this ruling to counter “pick and choose” litigation by State entities, and to support claims for enhanced compensation despite initial claim limits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the discriminatory conduct of the acquiring body, which accepted Reference Court awards for some claimants but challenged awards for others in identical circumstances. Following Supreme Court precedent in Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and Others (2023), such discrimination is impermissible.
- On the issue of compensation amount, the Court followed Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, holding that claimants can receive the higher amount they are legally entitled to, even if their pleaded claim was lower, provided deficit court fees are paid.
- With respect to classification of land as “irrigated”, the Court emphasized the need for supporting evidence such as 7/12 extracts. It held that mere existence of a well is insufficient to treat land as permanently irrigated; in the absence of such evidence, the lands were classified as dry or seasonally irrigated, with appropriate rates applied (Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry, Rs. 8400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated).
- For tree valuation, the Court accepted the expert valuer’s report as credible, particularly since the acquiring body led no evidence or meaningful cross-examination to rebut it, and followed Supreme Court guidance in Chinda Fakira Patil, capping the amount at 80% of valuation where appropriate.
- Cited case of Land Acquisition Officer, PWD, Altinho, Panaji, Goa was distinguished on facts; here, registration or credibility of the valuer was not substantively challenged or disproven.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred in restricting rate to claimed figure when claimants are entitled to more.
- Evidence showing irrigation (existence of well) was overlooked; lands should be considered irrigated.
- Rate of Rs. 11,200/- per Are should apply where a well is recorded.
- Tree valuation by the private expert should be accepted since acquiring body did not rebut evidence.
- Enhancement of compensation for land and trees is warranted.
Respondent (Acquiring Body/State):
- Rate fixed by Reference Court is unreasonable; SLAO’s rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Are is proper.
- Insufficient material was produced to justify enhanced rates; sale instances are unreliable.
- Private expert’s valuation is fictitious, unreliable, and made without due procedure.
- Claimants failed to produce 7/12 extracts to support irrigated land classification; should not be so treated.
- Expert valuer was unregistered and incompetent; his evidence and report should be discarded.
- Once claimants restrict their claim, they are estopped from seeking further enhancement.
Factual Background
Land belonging to multiple claimants was acquired for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project in Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land, based on selected sale instances. Claimants, disputing both the rate and land classification (irrigation/dry), sought enhancement in the Reference Court. The Reference Court increased the rate and recognized certain land as irrigated based on varying evidence. The acquiring body appealed against enhanced awards in only select (17) cases, while for other similarly situated claimants, no challenge was made. Both main and cross-appeals by claimants and acquiring body were consolidated and heard together.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment primarily interprets provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly regarding Section 4 (notification process), S. 23 (factors for determining compensation), and the evidentiary standards for determining “market value” of land and attached assets (like trees).
- It interprets that claimants are not legally bound by a restriction on the claim amount, and courts are obligated to award the compensation proven to be due, as per statutory entitlement and upon payment of any deficit court fee (as per Supreme Court guidance).
- For evidence of land “irrigation” status, the Court examines the relevance of 7/12 extracts and sale exemplars, holding that existence of a well alone is insufficient for “irrigated” classification.
- For trees and horticultural assets, the Court relies on the quantum and reliability of expert valuer’s evidence, requiring rebuttal or cross-examination to displace such evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment consolidates 49 related appeals to be decided by a common order, emphasizing efficiency and uniformity in similar disputes.
- It affirms the approach of treating cases arising from the same acquisition and similar fact matrices analogously, to prevent state authorities from “pick and choose” litigation strategies.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established Supreme Court precedent on entitlement to full compensation and prohibition of State discrimination among similarly situated claimants.