Bombay High Court holds that the acquiring body cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach by appealing against some claimants and acquiescing to awards for others arising from the same acquisition proceedings. The Court upholds the Supreme Court’s direction against discriminatory conduct, settles guidelines on compensation for dry and irrigated lands, and endorses partial acceptance of private expert evidence on tree valuation. This judgment affirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedent and has binding effect on all similar land acquisition matters in Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
|
| Date of Registration | 16-12-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature |
|
| 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 on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; strong persuasive value in similar land acquisition cases |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition (Compensation Determination) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The acquiring body cannot discriminate among similarly-situated claimants by appealing awards in only some cases within the same acquisition, as this constitutes impermissible discrimination and violates fairness principles established by the Supreme Court. When claimants restrict their claim amounts, but are entitled to greater compensation by law, courts must award the full entitled amount subject to deficit court fees, as per binding precedent. Where the existence of trees is corroborated by joint measurement and not rebutted by the acquiring authority, expert valuation evidence is to be accepted at 80% value as per Supreme Court guideline. Evidence required to classify land as irrigated is the presence of substantiated crop pattern and/or water source, not merely the existence of a well. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
49 appeals arise from the acquisition for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, village Anad, Aurangabad, group-registered and cross-appealed by claimants and acquiring authority. Possession taken 21.02.2011; notifications under LA Act issued 2011; SLAO awarded uniform rates for land and trees; rate for dry land ₹1,200 per Are; claimants sought enhancement and Reference Court awarded higher values based on sale instances and expert evidence. 17 appeals filed by acquiring authority (against enhancement), with 15 unappealed awards acquiesced by the State. Main disputes: uniformity and fairness of State challenges, appropriate rates for dry/irrigated land, and valuation of trees. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra; reference for Land Acquisition Officers and Reference Courts in similar matters. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; persuasive for the Supreme Court where similar facts arise. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The acquiring authority cannot selectively appeal Reference Court awards only against some claimants without violating principles of equality and fairness; such discriminatory “pick and choose” conduct is held illegal.
- If a claimant restricts the compensation claimed but is legally entitled to a higher amount, courts must award the correct amount subject to payment of deficit court fees.
- Classification as irrigated land requires actual evidence of irrigation (e.g., crop pattern, water sources, supporting documents), not merely the presence of a well.
- Where tree valuation is based on joint measurement and credible expert reports, and is unrebutted by the State, courts may adopt the expert value at a reduced percentage (here, 80%) in line with Supreme Court precedent.
- Judgment clarifies that intra-group differential litigation stance by the State in the same acquisition cannot be sustained and is a ground for dismissal of State appeals.
- Offers a template for claimants and State authorities to assess future land acquisition disputes, including procedural and evidentiary requirements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Discriminatory Appeals Prohibited: The Court applied the Supreme Court’s doctrine from Shivappa etc. v. Chief Engineer & Ors, holding that the State/acquiring authority cannot accept Reference Court awards for some claimants but challenge them for others arising from the same land acquisition. Such conduct constitutes discrimination and is forbidden.
- Rate Determination Confirmed: Reference Court’s compensation rates for dry and irrigated land were based on sale exemplars and claimant evidence. The Reference Court’s fixation was not disturbed as no better evidence was brought.
- Claims Restriction No Bar: Even where claimants restricted their claim, legal entitlement prevails per Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, and the correct rate should be awarded if substantiated (subject to deficit court fees).
- Proof for Irrigation Required: Land classification as irrigated requires substantive evidence (water source and cropping), not mere existence of a well. In the absence of such evidence, land is to be treated as seasonally irrigated at the appropriate rate.
- Tree Valuation Standardized: The Reference Court’s 80% acceptance of expert valuation (Chinda Fakira Patil) was upheld, as the State did not rebut evidence from claimants or question the expert’s credentials.
- Objections to Expert Evidence Dismissed: Challenges to the expert valuer’s credentials and lack of notice before inspection were rejected as unfounded in the absence of specific objections or contrary evidence.
- Orders: State’s appeals dismissed as non-maintainable due to discriminatory approach; claimants’ appeals partly allowed for enhanced compensation where substantiated.
- No Interference Where Satisfied: For 15 claimants, where the State did not appeal, awards stand.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Claimants
- Contended that Reference Court erred by restricting rates below what claimants are entitled to.
- Maintained that irrigation facilities (like wells) existed and lands should be treated as irrigated, not dry.
- Sought higher compensation for both land and trees, referencing unrebutted expert valuation.
- Asserted that pattern of crop is not decisive; existence of water source sufficient.
- Evidence supports claim for enhancement in all respects.
Respondent / Acquiring Authority
- Stated that Reference Court award is excessive and only SLAO’s original rate is reasonable.
- Objected to the reliability of claimant sale instances and expert tree valuation (claimed they were afterthoughts or fictitious).
- Asserted claimants did not provide documentary evidence (e.g., 7/12 extracts) of irrigated nature.
- Claimed that without proper objection, wells’ mere existence is insufficient for classifying land as irrigated.
- Argued that expert valuer for trees lacked required registration and that his report was methodologically deficient.
- Raised no appeals in 15 matters where content with award, highlighting inconsistent approach.
Factual Background
The case concerns a group of 49 appeals arising from land acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad. Land was acquired with possession taken in February 2011 and notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published the same year. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded a uniform rate for dry land (₹1,200 per Are) and for trees, based on joint measurements. Dissatisfied, claimants moved the Reference Court, which enhanced compensation based on sale exemplars and accepted expert tree valuation partially. The acquiring authority filed appeals challenging the enhancement in 17 cases but acquiesced in 15 others; claimants filed cross-appeals seeking further enhancement.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 4 (Land Acquisition Act): Notifications and procedural steps in acquisition.
- Compensation determination per Land Acquisition Act, with consideration of sale exemplars and classification as dry/irrigated land.
- Reference to Supreme Court and High Court precedents guiding statutory interpretation.
- Claimants are entitled to statutory compensation, even beyond restricted pleadings, upon payment of deficit court fees (Ambya Kalya Mhatra).
- 1990 Government circular applied regarding valuation of trees marked in joint measurement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No recorded dissent or concurring opinion. The judgment is delivered by a single judge with all reasoning incorporated into the main order.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court considered a group of linked first appeals for simultaneous disposal through a reasoning-led common judgment.
- Court directed that in cases where claim is restricted but entitlement established, award must reflect legal entitlement, not only the pleaded amount, subject to correct court fees.
- Mandated systemic uniformity in appeals and acquiescence for similar claimants within the same acquisition.
- Applied a percentage acceptance method for expert evidence in tree valuation, clarifying evidentiary standards where the State fails to rebut.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing Supreme Court law (Shivappa, Chinda Fakira Patil), applying it to forbid selective State appeals in acquisition matters and clarify standards for valuation and classification.