The Bombay High Court has held that the acquiring authority (State or its instrumentalities) cannot adopt a “pick and choose” policy by accepting Reference Court awards for some claimants while appealing against identical awards in the cases of others. The judgment affirms Supreme Court precedent (Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023) and directs uniform application. It has binding effect on land acquisition proceedings within Maharashtra and serves as strong persuasive authority elsewhere.
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 |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench; Coram: Shailesh P. Brahme, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Maharashtra, strong persuasive value nationally |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Bombay High Court ruled that the State or its instrumentalities cannot adopt a discriminatory approach by acquiescing to the Reference Court’s awards for some claimants and challenging them for others in the same acquisition process. Such conduct is prohibited by Supreme Court authority (Shivappa, 2023). The Reference Court’s approach to compensation rates—Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land—was correct given available evidence. The Court further held that mere existence of a well does not render land permanently irrigated without corroborative evidence. In matters of valuation of trees, where the acquiring authority does not rebut the claimant’s expert evidence, partial acceptance is justified. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the principle that the State must treat similarly situated claimants uniformly, and cannot “pick and choose” who to appeal against. It referenced the Supreme Court’s rebuke against discriminatory litigation strategy by the Government. The Reference Court’s assessment of evidence—especially regarding classification of land and valuation of trees—was examined for arbitrariness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | 49 appeals arose from acquisition of land for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, Village Anad, Aurangabad district. 17 appeals were filed by the acquiring authority against enhanced awards; claimants cross-appealed for higher rates in many cases. In 15 cases, the acquiring authority did not appeal against the Reference Court’s awards; only claimants sought more. Claimants based their case on existence of wells (for irrigation classification) and expert tree valuation. The acquiring authority challenged methodology, reliability of sale instances, and expert evidence. The Court noted that the acquiring body’s selective appeal conduct was discriminatory. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra; officers of the State Government and instrumentalities in land acquisition proceedings. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court future benches; national land acquisition litigation. |
| Overrules | — |
| Distinguishes | Bombay HC: Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) (Distinguished on facts regarding valuer’s competence) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The acquiring authority cannot pursue appeals against awards in selective cases while acquiescing in identical awards in other cases arising from the same acquisition.
- Uniformity and non-discrimination by the Government is now strictly mandated in land acquisition compensation.
- Reference Court’s awards for compensation for dry and irrigated land sustained—subject to evidence; mere presence of a well is not sufficient to declare land “permanently irrigated.”
- Where expert valuation evidence for trees is unrebutted, partial acceptance (to 80%) is proper if supported by Supreme Court precedent (Chinda Fakira, 2011).
- Pleas regarding limitation of enhancement (based on amount claimed) cannot restrict the Reference Court if evidence justifies higher compensation, provided deficit court fee is paid.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to resist discriminatory appeals by authorities and to argue for consistent application of compensation rates and valuation methods across all similarly situated claimants.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Uniform Treatment Mandate: The Court emphasized that the State or its instrumentalities must treat all similarly situated claimants equally. Relying on Shivappa v. Chief Engineer (2023), the bench held that the acquiring authority’s selective acceptance/challenge of Reference Court awards amounted to prohibited discrimination.
- Assessment of Compensation Rates: The Court examined the Reference Court’s approach to fixing compensation. It found that reliance on the sale exemplar dated 13.01.2011 was justified, and that the claimants failed to produce better sale instances or 7/12 extracts to support higher (or irrigation-based) rates in most cases.
- Law on Classification of Lands: The Court explained that while the existence of a well is relevant, it is not determinative of “permanent irrigation” status without documentary or oral evidence of use/pattern of crops. Seasonally irrigated status was recognized, and compensation was set accordingly.
- Valuation of Trees: Where the claimants provided expert valuer’s evidence for tree value and the acquiring authority led no effective rebuttal evidence or cross-examination, the Court found no error in the Reference Court accepting expert valuation to the extent of 80%, as directed by the Supreme Court in Chinda Fakira Patil (2011).
- Deficit Claims and Entitlement: Restriction in the amount claimed does not prevent the Court awarding higher compensation if justified by evidence, subject to court fee payment, as per Ambya Kalya Mhatra (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625) and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal (Bombay HC, 2019).
- Irrelevance of Cited Contrary Authority: Citing Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa, the Court found it factually distinguishable as valuer’s registration was not in question and no effective challenge was made to his evidence.
- Disposition of Appeals: The 17 appeals by the acquiring authority were dismissed. Cross appeals/claimant appeals were partly allowed to the extent indicated for certain cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Claimants:
- The Reference Court erred by restricting compensation, as claimants were entitled to higher rates based on evidence.
- Ignoring irrigation facilities and considering lands “dry” was incorrect; mere reliance on crop pattern is not decisive.
- Existence of well justifies awarding highest compensation for irrigated land.
- Valuation of trees by private expert should be accepted, given absence of rebuttal evidence.
- Entitled to enhancement for both land and tree compensation.
Respondent / Acquiring Authority:
- Reference Court’s fixed rates were unreasonable; SLAO rates were more realistic.
- No substantive evidence justified enhanced rates; sale instances were unreliable.
- Expert’s tree valuation was fictitious, post-facto, and prepared without due notice/inspection.
- Claimants could not substantiate the pattern of crop or irrigation status via 7/12 extracts.
- Claimants had restricted their claim amounts and should be estopped from seeking more.
- Expert valuer lacked registration/competency; report should be discarded.
Factual Background
The batch of 49 appeals stemmed from acquisition of agricultural land in Village Anad, Aurangabad district, for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 02.06.2011; award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.09.2012, uniformly valuing lands and trees. Aggrieved by quantum, claimants sought references, leading to enhanced compensation by the Reference Court based on sale instance evidence and expert tree valuation. The acquiring authority filed appeals against enhanced awards in 17 cases, while in other similar cases, no appeal was filed against the Reference Court’s awards. Claimants also challenged the Reference Court’s rates, demanding further enhancement.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, Section 4: Notification and initiation of proceedings.
- Valuation Principles: Reliance on sale exemplars (comparative method).
- Compensation Awarding Power: Reference to legal position that compensation need not be limited to claim amount if evidence shows entitlement, provided deficit court fee is paid.
- Compensation for Trees: Award based on expert evidence, partial acceptance (80%) per Supreme Court’s Chinda Fakira interpretation.
- Interpretation of “Irrigated” Land: Mere existence of a well insufficient; evidence required to classify as irrigated/permanently irrigated.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court consolidated 49 related appeals for final hearing by consent of parties, setting a precedent for coordinated disposal of large batches of land acquisition cases.
- Relied on charts and compilation method for efficient presentation and judicial analysis.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s uniformity/non-discrimination rule affirmed and applied.