The Court held that the State and its instrumentalities cannot selectively appeal land acquisition awards when similar cases have been accepted, branding this as discriminatory and contrary to Supreme Court guidance. The judgment upholds the Reference Court’s methodology for awarding compensation, sets uniform standards for valuation of land and trees, and provides binding authority on discriminatory conduct by acquiring bodies in Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CA/8791/2021 of THE GMIDC, THR THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. 1 AURANGABAD AND ANR Vs RAJMAL BALU CHAVAN |
| CNR | HCBM030219042021 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2021 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Maharashtra and having persuasive value for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s judgments, especially Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312); follows Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787 |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition, Compensation, Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot adopt a pick and choose approach in filing appeals against similarly situated claimants in land acquisition proceedings. Such discrimination is contrary to the principle of equality before law. Where the acquiring body has accepted Reference Court awards in some cases, it cannot validly challenge identical awards in others. The Court affirmed the Reference Court’s reliance on comparable sale instances, entitlement to fair compensation despite limitations in the claim, and objective valuation of trees as per established precedent. The Reference Court’s enhancement of the rate for dry lands to Rs. 5,600/- per Are and for seasonally irrigated lands to Rs. 8,400/- per Are, with 10% addition for compensation calculation, was approved. The methodology for appraisal, including acceptance of valuation reports for trees to the extent of 80% (as per Supreme Court), was also endorsed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
49 first appeals arose from acquisition of lands for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The SLAO offered Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry lands in a common award (24.09.2012). Claimants sought enhancement before the Reference Court, which raised rates to Rs. 5,600/- for dry lands (based on sale comparables), and recognized tree valuation at 80% of expert’s report (following Chinda Fakira Patil case). Both acquiring body and claimants preferred appeals, but in 15 cases the acquiring body accepted the Reference Court awards and did not appeal, leading to claims of discriminatory conduct when appeals were selectively filed for otherwise similarly situated claimants. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; government authorities dealing with land acquisition in Maharashtra. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, where applicable, future Supreme Court consideration (on factual parity). |
| Overrules | None indicated; but the approach contrary to Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer (2023) is rejected. |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018), holding facts not analogous regarding valuer registration. |
| Follows | Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312); Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787; Ambya Kalya Mhatra (AIR 2011 SC Supp 625); Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal (Bombay HC 2019) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that the State/acquiring body cannot adopt a ‘pick and choose’ approach in filing or refraining from appeals in similar land acquisition matters; such discrimination is barred by Supreme Court precedent.
- Uniform compensation for similarly situated landholders is mandatory; discriminatory conduct by the State in appeals is judicially indefensible.
- The Court clarifies that a claimant’s self-imposed restriction on quantum of claim does not preclude entitlement to the proper statutory amount if otherwise established.
- Acceptance of expert valuer’s report on tree valuation (to extent of 80%) is standard—if unchallenged by contrary evidence—even if its registration pertains to wealth tax and not land acquisition.
- Distinguishes mere existence of a well from grant of status as “permanently irrigated land,” settling that 7/12 extracts and actual crop pattern are key determinants.
- The Reference Court’s rates and approach in determining irrigation status are judicially endorsed; future enhancement claims must be supported by documentary proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that in a batch of 49 acquisition appeals concerning lands at Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, the acquiring body had accepted the Reference Court’s compensation in 15 cases, but selectively appealed in 17 cases involving similarly situated claimants.
- Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312), the Court held that such inconsistent conduct by the State amounts to unlawful discrimination: once the State accepts an award for some claimants, it must maintain parity for others in similar circumstances.
- The Reference Court’s enhancement (from Rs. 1,200/- per Are to Rs. 5,600/- for dry lands and Rs. 8,400/- for seasonally irrigated lands) was based on documentary evidence, a relevant sale instance, and oral testimony; no better exemplars were produced by either side.
- The acquiring body’s lack of contrary oral or documentary evidence to the claimants’ valuation, especially regarding the number and valuation of trees, resulted in judicial acceptance of the expert valuer’s testimony, consistent with Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787—but valuation was confined to 80% of such appraisals.
- The Court clarified that when the claimants were entitled to a rate higher than their restricted claim, the Reference Court was still bound to award the proper amount, in line with Ambya Kalya Mhatra (AIR 2011 SC Supp 625) and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal (Bombay HC 2019).
- Objections on the competency or registration of the valuer, as raised in Goa PWD case, were rejected because no cross-examination or substantive challenge occurred in this batch of cases.
- The status of land as “permanently irrigated” requires proof beyond the mere presence of a well—such as crop pattern and documentary land records.
- Ultimately, the Court dismissed the acquiring body’s appeals and partly allowed claimants’ appeals for recalculation of compensation at the higher, uniform rates, with adjustment for court fees where required.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimants):
- The Reference Court erred in restricting claimants to a particular compensation figure even when higher rates were justified.
- Evidence of irrigation facilities (such as wells) was disregarded when classifying land as dry or seasonal rather than irrigated; crop pattern should not be the sole determinant.
- Entitlement to Rs. 11,200/- per Are where wells were recorded.
- Expert valuer’s tree valuation was justified in absence of rebuttal by the acquiring body.
- Compensation for both land and trees should be enhanced.
Respondent (Acquiring Body):
- The Reference Court’s enhanced rates were unreasonable, and the SLAO’s rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Are was fair; sale comparables were unreliable.
- Private expert’s tree valuations were fictitious, unsubstantiated, or prepared without notice and much after site visits.
- In some appeals (e.g., where no well was present), claims for irrigated land status were unjustified and unsupported by land records (7/12 extracts) or crop data.
- Claimants were estopped from seeking more compensation after restricting claims in reference proceedings.
- The competency of the expert valuer was questioned for lack of relevant registration.
Factual Background
The case arises from acquisition proceedings for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Village Anad, Tq. Soigaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer’s common award dated 24.09.2012 fixed compensation at Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry lands and assessed trees separately. Aggrieved, the claimants sought enhanced compensation before the Reference Court, which increased the land rates and partly accepted tree valuations based on expert evidence. The acquiring body filed 17 appeals challenging the enhanced awards, while claimants filed 32 appeals (including cross-appeals and those where no appeal was preferred by the acquiring body). The appeals were heard together owing to the common issues of classification, valuation, and uniformity of State action.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, especially concerning Sections 4 (notification), compensation calculation for different categories of land (dry, irrigated, seasonally irrigated), and assessment of trees.
- The judgment applied principles from Supreme Court precedent to enforce Article 14 (equality before law) for similarly situated claimants.
- The judgment clarified that compensation is to be determined based on reliable sale exemplars, documentary, and oral evidence, with due allowance for proper claim even if initially restricted.
- Acceptance of expert valuation evidence in absence of contrary evidence, and calculation of compensation at 80% of expert valuation for trees, followed the Supreme Court’s reading of the Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court permitted and considered detailed charts and compilations submitted jointly by parties for expeditious and comprehensive resolution of 49 connected appeals in a single judgment.
- Confirmed that even where the claimant restricts the quantum of claim, the Reference Court and appellate court may award higher compensation subject to deficit court fees.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment explicitly follows binding Supreme Court precedent, particularly on the impermissibility of discriminatory conduct by State authorities in land acquisition matters and the standard for expert valuation of trees.