The Bombay High Court has held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach in challenging reference court awards arising from the same land acquisition proceedings. This judgment aligns with Supreme Court precedent, affirms the binding principle of non-discrimination in State appeals, and is now binding authority for all subordinate courts and instrumentalities in similar land acquisition contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3580/2022 of DIPAK SAIDAS RATHOD (DIED) THR LRS REKHA WD/O DIPAK RATHOD AND ORS Vs THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO. 1 AURANGABAD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030060832022 |
| Date of Registration | 24-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (for appeals by acquiring body); Partly allowed (for claimants) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition Act; Compensation determination; State practice in litigation. |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
49 first appeals arose from land acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Anad, Aurangabad. Of these, the acquiring body challenged 17, while acquiescing in 15 others with similar compensation awards. Reference courts had enhanced compensation for claimants; appeals were filed both for enhancement (by claimants) and reduction (by State). The claimants also contested the valuation of trees and classification as dry vs. irrigated land. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Maharashtra dealing with land acquisition compensation; acquiring bodies within the State. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court when considering similar factual matrices. |
| Overrules | None – affirms existing precedent. |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554—distinguished on facts, especially re: valuer’s registration. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the State/acquiring bodies cannot selectively prefer appeals in land acquisition cases where other similarly placed claimants have not been challenged—a “pick and choose” approach is barred as discriminatory.
- Even if a claimant has restricted the compensation claim to a certain figure, courts can (and should) award a higher amount if evidence supports entitlement, subject to payment of deficit court fees.
- Sale exemplars must be properly scrutinized; the best available and uncontested exemplar can be used where no stronger evidence exists.
- Valuation of trees as per an expert report is proper when the acquiring body fails to lead rebuttal evidence or credibly impeach the expert’s credentials.
- The pattern of crop is not definitive for classifying land as irrigated; concrete evidence such as existence of a well and crop records are relevant, but mere existence of a well does not make land “permanently irrigated.”
- The Bombay High Court specifically confirmed that none of the acquired lands in the appeals are to be treated as permanently irrigated (unless so evidenced).
- Lawyers representing claimants or the State must ensure consistent litigation strategy across similarly situated cases to avoid dismissal for discrimination.
- The judgment confirms calculation methods for dry and seasonally irrigated land, clarifying applicable compensation rates.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first recited the factual matrix: 49 appeals, with the acquiring body appealing only some, not all, reference court decisions with similar compensation awards.
- The principal question was the permissibility of the State’s “pick and choose” approach in appeals—the Court found that the Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer had categorically barred such discrimination, holding that acceptance of awards by the State in related matters binds them from contesting similarly situated cases.
- Reference was made to established precedent allowing Courts to grant higher compensation to claimants even if the claim was restricted in pleadings, subject to deficit court fee (Ambya Kalya Mhatra case).
- The fixing of compensation by relying on sale exemplars—particularly that of land gut No. 129—was supported by evidence. The rate of Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry lands and Rs. 8400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated lands (not permanently irrigated) was held justified.
- The Court noted lack of evidence by claimants to support claims for permanent irrigation, relying on 7/12 extracts or pattern of crop records.
- Regarding trees, the Court reaffirmed the Reference Court’s use of 80% of the expert valuer’s figures per Chindha Fakira Patil (Supreme Court) in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
- The judgment distinguished Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Panaji, Goa, holding its facts inapposite for the instant case, especially since the valuer’s competence was neither credibly challenged nor impeached in cross-examination.
- Accordingly, the Court dismissed appeals by the acquiring body, allowed claimants’ appeals to the extent of proper classification and compensation, and confirmed the awards where correct.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners / Claimants:
- The Reference Court erred by restricting the awarded rate when claimants were entitled to a higher figure based on evidence.
- Evidence of irrigation facilities (e.g., wells) was overlooked; lands should be classified as irrigated unless evidence precluded.
- Rates of Rs. 11,200/- per Are were sought where wells existed.
- Tree valuation was inadequate; uncontroverted expert evidence deserved acceptance.
- Sought enhancement of compensation for land and trees.
Respondents / Acquiring Body:
- The Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation was unreasonable and unsupported by reliable sale instances.
- Valuation reports of private experts were alleged to be fictitious, afterthoughts, or unreliable, citing delayed inspections and lack of notification.
- In some cases, claimants failed to produce documentary proof (such as 7/12 extracts) to establish crop pattern and irrigated status; thus, dry land rates should apply.
- The expert valuer’s competency was questioned; report and oral evidence should be disregarded.
- Claimants were estopped from seeking more compensation if claims were restricted in pleadings.
Factual Background
The case concerns a group of 49 first appeals arising out of land acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project in Village Anad, Aurangabad District. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued an award on 24.09.2012, fixing a uniform base rate for acquired lands and trees. Claimants, dissatisfied, sought references which led the Reference Courts to enhance compensation. Both the acquiring body (mainly for reduction) and claimants (mainly for enhancement) appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dealt with all contests in a common judgment. The acquiring authority, notably, did not challenge all awards—creating a discrimination issue central to the Court’s reasoning.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act: Sections 4 and procedure for notification, reference and compensation determination were at issue.
- The notification under Section 4(1) was issued and published as per statutory requirements.
- The Court interpreted principles governing compensation calculation: admissibility and weight of sale exemplars, classification of land as dry or irrigated (based on water sources and evidence), and treatment of restricted claims.
- The Court referred to relevant Supreme Court case law when considering whether restriction of claim in pleadings barred higher compensation by the court.
- Sectionality in valuation for “trees” was addressed as per precedent and statutory standards, including use of expert evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court consolidated and disposed of a large group of appeals with similar factual and legal backgrounds by a common detailed judgment, enhancing judicial efficiency and uniformity.
- Accepted charts and compilations submitted by claimants for judicial convenience, with acquiescence by the opposing counsel.
- Confirmed that, notwithstanding claimants’ restrictions on claims, courts retain the jurisdiction to grant higher compensation according to entitlement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on non-discrimination by State in land acquisition litigation is affirmed and applied.