State authorities cannot challenge enhancement of compensation for some landowners while acquiescing in awards for others in comparable circumstances. The judgment upholds the Supreme Court’s bar on “pick and choose” tactics, reinforces uniformity in compensation under land acquisition law, affirms established precedent, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/525/2020 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs DEVKABAI SHIVRAJ CHAVAN AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030046362020 |
| Date of Registration | 12-02-2020 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge, Aurangabad Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the principle from 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312 (Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors) and follows Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition, Compensation, Government Litigation Conduct |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The acquiring body’s conduct of appealing against enhanced compensation orders only for certain claimants, while acquiescing in identical awards for others, is discriminatory and barred by the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. The reference court’s methodology in fixing compensation rates is sound; however, claimants are entitled to higher compensation if justified by evidence, irrespective of their originally restricted claims. No land in these appeals qualifies as permanently irrigated, but lands with wells are to be treated as seasonally irrigated, entitled to a higher rate than dry lands. Valuation of trees, in the absence of rebuttal or contrary evidence from the acquiring body, should follow the Supreme Court’s 80% acceptance principle. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The group of 49 appeals arose from acquisition proceedings for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank; 17 filed by the acquiring body, others by landowners for enhancement, with common genesis and impugned award. Reference Court enhanced the compensation based on specific sale exemplars and an expert valuation of trees. The acquiring body did not present rebuttal evidence, and in several cases, did not appeal, triggering issues of discriminatory conduct. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and as supportive authority at Supreme Court level |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court applies and enforces the Supreme Court principle barring State authorities from selectively appealing against reference court awards in land acquisition cases when similarly situated parties have been granted the same compensation.
- Where claimants restrict their claim to a particular compensation figure, they are nonetheless entitled to a higher amount if so justified by evidence and on payment of the necessary court fee.
- Classification of land as dry or seasonally irrigated depends on the existence of irrigation sources (e.g., wells), but mere existence of a well is not conclusive for permanent irrigation status in the absence of documentary/crop evidence.
- Valuation of trees must follow the 80% acceptance rule from the Supreme Court decision in Chinda Fakira Patil when uncontroverted by the acquiring authority.
- Conduct of the acquiring authority in similar matters can be challenged as discriminatory if it appeals in some and not in others, providing a practical argument for uniform relief or dismissal of selective appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the acquiring body appealed against enhanced compensation in only some cases, while in identical matters it acquiesced in the award. This was held to be discriminatory, explicitly barred by the Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312).
- The fixing of compensation by the Reference Court, based on a sale instance dated 13.01.2011 and expert testimony, was held proper and well-founded.
- The High Court stated that claimants could receive even more than claimed if evidence supports such prayer, drawing upon Ambya Kalya Mhatra (Supreme Court) and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal (Bombay High Court).
- Only lands with concrete evidence of wells present were categorized as seasonally irrigated (Rs. 8400/- per Are), and dry lands (without source) at Rs. 5600/- per Are. No lands qualified as permanently irrigated.
- For tree valuation, the court endorsed the Reference Court’s adoption of the Supreme Court’s 80% rule in Chinda Fakira Patil, as the acquiring authority led no rebuttal evidence and mere technical objections to the valuer’s credentials were rejected.
- The court distinguished the applicability of Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa as facts differed.
- Directions issued for individual calculation and drawing of awards were given and pending civil applications disposed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Acquiring Body):
- The rate fixed by the Reference Court is excessive and illegal; SLAO’s rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Are is the modest rate.
- No reliable material or sale instances justify enhancement to Rs. 5,600/- per Are.
- Private expert reports on tree valuation are fictitious, prepared after undue delay, and should be discarded.
- In some appeals, classification of land as irrigated is unsupported, particularly in absence of 7/12 records of crop patterns.
- Expert valuer’s competency and credibility are challenged for lack of registration and alleged concoction of evidence.
- Reference Court should not have enhanced amounts where claim was restricted.
Respondent (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred by limiting compensation to the original claim figure instead of awarding as justified by evidence.
- Existence of irrigation facilities (such as wells) overlooked; more lands ought to be treated as irrigated.
- Entitlement to a higher rate (Rs. 11,200/- for lands with wells) is claimed.
- Tree valuation is inadequate; expert’s report should be fully accepted absent rebuttal by the acquiring body.
- Uniformity in State conduct is urged; discriminatory attitude (appealing only in some cases) violates equality.
Factual Background
The case involves a group of 49 appeals concerning compensation for land and trees acquired for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank in village Anad, Tal. Soigaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The SLAO issued an award on 24.09.2012 offering a common compensation rate. Many landowners challenged the award before the Reference Court, which enhanced rates based on a specific sale instance and an expert valuer’s report. The State (acquiring body) appealed in 17 cases but accepted the same or similar awards in others, while claimants cross-appealed seeking further enhancement. The appeals came to the High Court for final determination.
Statutory Analysis
- The Land Acquisition Act’s Section 4 notifications and related procedure were applied.
- Categorization of land (dry, seasonally irrigated, permanently irrigated) was determined by the presence/absence of irrigation sources and supporting evidence, not merely claimant preference.
- The court interpreted applicable precedent as requiring uniform treatment of similarly situated parties under Article 14 (equality) principles, requiring the State to avoid “pick and choose” tactics.
- Section 18 (Reference to court) and compensation computation provisions were applied as per the Reference Court’s award and Supreme Court guidelines.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court consolidated and disposed 49 linked first appeals in a single, common judgment, ensuring consistency and clarity.
- The Court specifically addressed and rectified the Reference Court’s error of limiting compensation to the claim figure, reiterating the entitlement to higher amounts if supported by evidence and subject to payment of court fee deficit.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment closely applies and affirms the Supreme Court’s direction against discriminatory conduct by the State in litigation and follows the established 80% rule for valuation of trees from Supreme Court precedent.