The Bombay High Court has affirmed that once the State or its agency accepts a compensation award for some landholders, it cannot contest similar awards for others arising from the same acquisition; such selective appeals are discriminatory. The Court has clarified the compensation methodology for dry versus irrigated land and valuation of trees, upholding Supreme Court precedent and providing binding authority for valuation disputes in land acquisition cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CA/10820/2021: THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT DIV. 1 AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs PANDIT GANGU RATHOD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030125652020 |
| Date of Registration | 06-10-2021 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| 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 future matters involving the same legal questions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court guidance in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw SC 312) and Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787 |
| Type of Law | Land acquisition, compensation determination, government discrimination |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach by accepting awards in favor of some claimants and challenging identical awards for others in the same acquisition. Such conduct is discriminatory and prohibited, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The fixing of compensation rates must be objective: Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry land, Rs. 8400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land; valuation of trees as per expert is valid unless countered by evidence. Even if the claimant restricts his claim, entitlement is to the correct award, subject to deficit court fee. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The batch included 49 appeals arising out of acquisition of land for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, village Anad, Aurangabad. SLAO awarded Rs. 1,200/- per Are for dry land and compensation for trees. Reference Court enhanced rates relying on sale exemplars and expert evidence. Acquiring body led no evidence in rebuttal, but selectively appealed some awards and not others, leading to allegations of discrimination by the claimants, and cross appeals for further enhancement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra; parties before the Aurangabad Bench in similar cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with land acquisition discrimination or compensation methodology |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho, Panaji v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554, on valuer’s competency, as facts were different |
| Follows | Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw SC 312); Chinda Fakira Patil (2011) 10 SCC 787 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The State or its agency cannot contest selected compensation awards if it has accepted identical awards for other claimants in the same land acquisition; such discrimination is impermissible, per Supreme Court guidance.
- Compensation must be awarded according to entitlement, even if the claimant restricted the amount in his original claim, subject to deficit court fee.
- The Reference Court’s methodology—Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land, Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land, and valuation of trees at 80% of expert report—is upheld unless challenged by credible evidence.
- Existence of a well alone does not make land permanently irrigated; additional evidence (like crop pattern, 7/12 extracts) is needed.
- Private valuer’s (expert) report may be accepted, even if the acquisition body does not challenge or rebut it by evidence.
- Lawyers for the acquiring body must ensure uniformity in handling awards across claimants to avoid appeals being struck down as discriminatory.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court found that the State/acquiring authority’s approach in appealing some reference court compensation awards while accepting others arising from the same acquisition proceedings was discriminatory, following the Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors. This, by itself, was grounds to dismiss the State’s appeals.
- On compensation calculation, the Court objectively scrutinized the Reference Court’s reliance on sale exemplars, including oral and documentary evidence, holding these methods as consistent with law.
- The reference to existence of a well was not sufficient by itself to classify land as permanently irrigated; lack of supporting documentary evidence or crop pattern records meant claimants’ higher claims could not succeed.
- On the issue of restricted claims, the Court followed Ambya Kalya Mhatra v. State of Maharashtra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal v. State of Maharashtra, holding that a claimant is entitled to the full, lawful rate even if his pleadings sought less.
- For tree valuation, following Chinda Fakira Patil (D) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, the Reference Court’s 80% acceptance of the expert’s report, in absence of rebuttal, was proper. Objections to the expert’s registration or procedure were not supported by evidence and dismissed, distinguishing the Bombay High Court’s Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar decision.
- The Court refused to interfere with the Reference Court’s findings except to clarify and direct compensation as per entitlement, not merely pleading.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Reference Court erred in restricting rates; claimants entitled to higher rates where evidence supports it.
- Overlooked irrigation facilities; pattern of crop not a decisive factor.
- Lands with wells should be valued as irrigated.
- Valuation of trees was inadequate; absence of rebuttal by State means valuer’s report should be accepted.
- Sought overall enhanced compensation for land and trees.
Respondent
- Reference Court’s rates were unreasonable; SLAO’s rate was modest and proper.
- No material to justify enhanced rates; sale instances unreliable.
- Private valuer’s report was fictitious/unreliable; inspection and reporting were not properly notified or contemporaneous.
- Claimants did not produce sufficient land records (e.g., 7/12 extract) to prove irrigation.
- Claimants estopped from seeking more than they had formally claimed.
- Expert valuer was not properly registered/qualified.
Factual Background
The appeals arose from acquisition of land for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded a uniform compensation of Rs. 1,200/- per Are for land plus tree compensation. The Reference Court enhanced this amount, relying on sale instance evidence and expert valuation, to Rs. 5,600/- for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- for seasonally irrigated land, and awarded tree compensation following valuation reports. The acquiring body appealed some of these awards but left others unchallenged, prompting claimants’ cross-appeals seeking further enhancement and allegations of discrimination.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court applied Sections 4 and subsequent provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for notification, measurement, and award determination.
- Interpretation of “irrigated” versus “dry” land was based on documentary evidence, pattern of crop, and well existence, rather than presumption.
- The effect of restricting compensation claims in pleadings was analyzed with reference to Supreme Court precedent, affirming that legal entitlement cannot be restricted by the prayer clause, subject to payment of deficit court fee.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court consolidated and decided 49 related first appeals and cross-appeals arising from the same land acquisition, streamlining the process and ensuring uniformity.
- The Court explicitly recognized that acquiescence (letters from the acquiring body in unchallenged cases) binds its conduct in similar matters, preventing “pick and choose” litigation by the State.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court legal principles on discrimination by government in land acquisition appeals, methodology for compensation, entitlement irrespective of prayer, and tree valuation were affirmed and applied.