Can the State Adopt a ‘Pick and Choose’ Approach in Appealing Reference Court Awards Under the Land Acquisition Act? Reaffirmation of Non-Discrimination and Uniformity Principles by the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has categorically held that State authorities cannot selectively challenge Reference Court awards, reaffirming the Supreme Court mandate against discriminatory appeal practice in land acquisition compensation matters. All similarly placed claimants must be treated equally, reinforcing binding precedent for land acquisition cases across Maharashtra.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The State/acquiring authority cannot pursue a selective, “pick and choose” approach in appealing Reference Court compensation awards—doing so is discriminatory and legally impermissible.
• Where the State accepts awards in one set of similarly placed cases but appeals in others, its appeals are liable to be dismissed for non-uniformity.
• Restriction of claim by the claimant does not bar the court from awarding higher compensation if evidence justifies it, subject to payment of deficit court fees.
• If the acquiring authority leads no rebuttal evidence or fails to cross-examine/expose defects in the expert valuer’s evidence, courts may accept the valuer’s report (though courts may apply a discount, e.g., 80% per Supreme Court’s ruling).
• Mere existence of a well does not make the land “permanently irrigated”—evidence (including crop pattern or water source) remains decisive.
• Lawyers should ensure uniform documentation and appeal strategy in land acquisition matters to avoid vulnerable, discriminatory practices.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The court found that the acquiring body (State) adopted a discriminatory “pick and choose” practice by accepting the Reference Court’s award in some cases while challenging it in others, despite identical factual circumstances.
• Relying on Supreme Court judgment Shivappa Etc. Vs. Chief Engineer & Ors. (2023 SC), the court held that such selective appeal conduct is barred, as it offends the principles of equality and non-discrimination under the law.
• On compensation for land, the Reference Court had validly relied on admissible sale exemplar evidence and the claimants’ oral/documentary evidence. The enhanced rates were held to be reasonable.
• Even where claimants restricted their claims to certain amounts, the judiciary is empowered to grant higher compensation if the evidence supports it, as long as deficit court fee is paid (see Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal).
• Regarding valuation of trees, as the acquiring body led no rebuttal evidence and the valuer was not credibly impeached, the Reference Court’s approach in accepting 80% of the valuer’s estimate was upheld, consistent with Chinda Fakira Patil (2012 SC).
• The High Court distinguished Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Panaji (2018 Bom HC) on valuer’s competence, finding no plausible challenge to the expert in the instant cases.
• As a result, State appeals were dismissed, and claimants’ cross-appeals for entitlement to higher compensation were partly allowed.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Claimants):

• The Reference Court erred in restricting rates instead of awarding full compensation; claimants entitled to higher rates as per evidence.
• Existence of irrigation facilities (wells) was overlooked; pattern of crop should not be determinative of land status.
• Valuation of trees by the private expert was proper; with no rebuttal evidence, the report should be fully accepted.
• Claimants should be given enhanced compensation for land and trees.

Respondent (Acquiring Body/State):

• The Reference Court’s enhanced rates were unreasonable; S.L.A.O.’s original rate was appropriate.
• Sale exemplars relied upon by claimants were not reliable.
• Valuer’s reports on trees were fictitious, unreliable, and prepared after substantial delay, sometimes without proper notice.
• Claimants failed to produce 7/12 extracts to establish irrigation or crop pattern; wells alone do not prove irrigability.
• The expert valuer was not competent; his evidence should be wholly disregarded.
• In certain cases, land status as “irrigated” was unsubstantiated (e.g., where no well existed).

Factual Background

A group of 49 appeals emerged from land acquisition proceedings for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank in Village Anad, Soigaon, Aurangabad District. The S.L.A.O. passed a common award, fixing the rate for dry land at Rs. 1,200/- per Are. Aggrieved, claimants sought references for enhanced compensation. The Reference Court, relying on sale exemplars and expert valuation, substantially increased the rates for land and accepted tree valuation at 80% of the expert’s figure. The acquiring authority appealed against the Reference Court’s awards in some (but not all) cases, while claimants cross-appealed for further enhancements.

Statutory Analysis

• Interpretation of Sections 4 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
• Proper notification and joint measurement processes were examined.
• The Court interpreted “irrigated land” versus “dry land” in the context of compensation, holding that mere existence of a well is insufficient—there must be corroborative evidence of irrigation.
• 7/12 extracts (land records) and sale exemplars were pivotal in determining compensation.
• The entitlement to receive compensation beyond the amount claimed (upon payment of court fees) was reinforced.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment is by a single judge.

Procedural Innovations

• Consolidation and common disposal of 49 appeals/cross-appeals based on a shared factual matrix and identical legal issues.
• Use of summary material charts to systematize compensation and claim adjudication.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment faithfully applies and affirms Supreme Court precedent on non-discriminatory conduct by the State in land acquisition proceedings.