The Bombay High Court reaffirmed the binding effect of the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution restricting state appeals in land acquisition cases where the enhanced compensation does not exceed four times the original award. This clarification further entrenches administrative policy as a factor in limiting state challenges against reference court enhancement, functioning as a binding precedent for subordinate courts in Maharashtra and strongly persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CA/6396/2012 of THE STATE OF MAH Vs SHRIPATI PARVATI RODE AND ORS |
| CNR | HCBM030141492012 |
| Date of Registration | 08-06-2012 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench at Aurangabad |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Maharashtra; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, in view of the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution and Corrigendum, appeals are not to be filed or must be withdrawn if the enhanced amount is within four times the S.L.A.O.’s award. Compensation enhancement in the present appeals fell within this limit. The State’s AGP could not point to any illegality or perversity in the lower court’s decision. Pending appeals in such situations serve no purpose and must be dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None expressly cited in the judgment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016; Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Lands acquired from village Suregaon, Shrigonda, Ahmednagar, for Jabhalpattil Pazar Tank; S.4 notification on 13.11.1997; Award on 15.11.2000. Reference court enhanced compensation (in three cases, less than double; in one case, just more than double but less than triple the S.L.A.O. amount). Government policy restricts appeals unless enhancement is more than four times S.L.A.O. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Maharashtra. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, especially in states following similar government policies. |
| Follows | Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has categorically applied the Government of Maharashtra’s policy circular: if enhanced compensation is within four times the S.L.A.O.’s award, the State cannot maintain appeals against the Reference Court’s order.
- A Government Resolution, when cited before the High Court and not shown to be ultra vires or perverse, will bind state litigation strategy.
- When facing state appeals in similar factual circumstances, practitioners can promptly seek dismissal on this basis.
- Lack of “illegality or perversity” in the lower court order further weakens the maintainability of state appeals within the prescribed compensation boundary.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that all the impugned appeals concerned enhancement of land acquisition compensation by the Reference Court.
- It reviewed the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution (dated 03.11.2016) and Corrigendum (dated 23.02.2017), which expressly barred state appeals in cases where the enhancement does not exceed four times the S.L.A.O. award, and directed withdrawal of pending appeals in such situations.
- On examination of facts, in all four appeals, the enhanced compensation was within the quadrupling limit.
- The Court further noted that the State’s AGP could not establish any illegality or perversity in the Reference Court’s logic or findings.
- Given these facts and policy, the High Court held there was no justifiable reason to continue the appeals, mandating their dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
State of Maharashtra: No further arguments recorded in the order, except submissions via the AGP.
Respondent
Shewantabai Bhikaji Rode & Ors. / Other Claimants: Counsel for respondents clarified that legal Heir No. 4 is the sole legal heir for a deceased respondent and that bringing additional heirs on record is unnecessary.
AGP for State
Unable to point to any illegality or perversity in the impugned Reference Court judgment and award.
Factual Background
The State of Maharashtra acquired agricultural land from various claimants in village Suregaon, Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, for construction of the Jabhalpattil Pazar Tank. The Section 4 notification issued on 13.11.1997, with the award following on 15.11.2000. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation as per official rates. On reference by the landowners, the Reference Court enhanced the amount – in three cases, less than double the S.L.A.O. award; in one, just over double but less than three times. The State appealed these enhancements. However, government policy, via a resolution and corrigendum, directed that appeals should not be pursued unless enhancement exceeds four times the S.L.A.O. amount.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment references the Land Acquisition Act for procedural background (S.4 notification, S.L.A.O.’s award, reference proceedings).
- The core legal instrument interpreted is the Government of Maharashtra’s Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017, providing an administrative bar on the maintainability of appeals by the state in certain cases of compensation enhancement.
- No direct constitutional or other statutory provisions were interpreted expansively or narrowly by the Court in this order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court streamlined dismissal of state appeals aligned with government policy where there was neither gross illegality nor excess in compensation granted by lower courts.
- Civil applications for condonation of delay were allowed, but the principal issue (appeal maintainability under government resolution) was resolved in limine.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed established government policy on bar to state appeals in cases of moderate compensation enhancement.