Does Acceptance of Enhanced Compensation by the Acquiring Body in Some Land Acquisition Cases Preclude It from Challenging Identical Awards in Others? Discrimination and the Impermissibility of Pick-and-Choose Approach by State Authorities Affirmed

The Bombay High Court, reaffirming settled law, held that State instrumentalities cannot adopt a pick-and-choose approach by accepting enhanced compensation in some land acquisition references while challenging identical awards in others arising from the same acquisition. This judgment follows and applies binding Supreme Court precedent, strengthening the bar against discriminatory litigation conduct by the government in land acquisition matters. It serves as decisive binding authority in all similar cases within Maharashtra.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reiterates that State authorities cannot adopt a discriminatory approach by appealing some land awards while acquiescing to others from the same acquisition, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
• Clarifies that compensation must be uniform for similarly situated claimants unless a valid distinguishing factor is clearly established on record.
• Holds that the mere existence of a well is insufficient for classification as “permanently irrigated land” without substantive evidence such as crop patterns or 7/12 extracts.
• Affirms the acceptance of expert valuer evidence in the absence of rebuttal by the acquiring authority, particularly when joint measurements corroborate such evidence.
• Reference Courts’ mathematical restriction of compensation claimed does not bar claimants from receiving higher compensation proved as due, subject to court fee.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court noted the discriminatory approach of the acquiring authority, which had not appealed awards in 15 matters but challenged similar awards in 17 otherwise identical cases arising from the same acquisition for a percolation tank.
• Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer & Ors., it held that such a pick-and-choose approach by the State is impermissible and amounts to patent discrimination.
• The Court conducted independent scrutiny but found the awards passed by the Reference Court reasonable, as they were based on evidence including comparable sale exemplars and expert reports.
• It reaffirmed that claimants restricting their claim to a particular figure are not estopped from being awarded full compensation proved as due, referencing Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Bombay High Court precedent.
• For classification of land, the Court rejected the argument that existence of a well alone proves permanent irrigation, holding that documentary and oral evidence (such as crop records) is necessary.
• On valuation of trees, the Court found no credible evidence to dispute the expert’s report and confirmed the Reference Court’s approach of awarding 80% of the expert’s valuation per the Supreme Court in Chindha Fakira Patil.
• The Court distinguished facts in Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Goa) case concerning the competency of valuer, noting no comparable objections in the present case.
• The result was dismissal of the acquiring authority’s appeals and partial allowance of claimants’ appeals for uniform compensation.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Claimants):

• Reference Court erred in capping compensation when higher rates were due.
• Lands with wells should be classified as irrigated, not merely dry or seasonal.
• Valuation of trees by private expert was reasonable and unchallenged.
• Sought enhancement in compensation for land and trees.

Respondent (Acquiring Body/State):

• Reference Court’s rate enhancement was excessive and unsupported by reliable sale instances.
• Expert’s valuation of trees was fictitious, belated, and unreliable.
• Absence of crop pattern or 7/12 extract negated claim for irrigation benefit.
• Expert valuer lacked requisite registration/competence.
• In some instances, no well existed, land should be classified as dry.
• Claimants, having restricted their claims, were estopped from seeking further enhancement.

Factual Background

A group of 49 first appeals arose from the acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank in village Anad, Aurangabad district. The lands (including trees) were acquired following lawful notification and joint measurement, with original compensation awards of Rs. 1,200/- per Are fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in 2012. Claimants dissatisfied with the compensation sought enhancement before the Reference Court, which, in multiple judgments, awarded increased compensation based on sale exemplars and expert opinion. The acquiring authority accepted several awards but appealed others, resulting in competing appeals before the High Court by both claimants (seeking further enhancement) and the acquiring authority (challenging enhancements).

Statutory Analysis

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4 notifications were issued and published according to statutory process. The award of compensation (including classification of land as dry, seasonal irrigated, or irrigated) and valuation of trees proceeded under statutory provisions.

No new interpretive principles were pronounced regarding statutory sections; rather, the Court applied established law requiring uniform State conduct and sound evidence for compensation determination.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this judgment.

Procedural Innovations

• The Court consolidated and decided 49 appeals via a single common judgment due to identical facts and legal issues.
• Accepted summary charts prepared by counsel as accurate aids to judicial decision-making, with consent of both sides.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Binding Supreme Court precedent on discrimination and State conduct reaffirmed and applied.