The Bombay High Court reaffirms that claimants in land acquisition proceedings are entitled to compensation based on actual entitlement, even if their claim is restricted to a lower figure, subject to payment of deficit court fees. The Court further clarifies that the presence of a water source alone does not qualify land as “permanently irrigated” without supporting evidence. Adopts and applies Supreme Court and coordinate bench precedent; upholds Reference Court methodology on valuation of trees based on expert evidence. This judgment serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Maharashtra on these issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3588/2022 of GANESH BABU CHAVAN Vs THE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HCBM030009752022 |
| Date of Registration | 24-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (for First Appeals filed by Acquiring Body); Cross Appeals/First Appeals by claimants partly allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench |
| Bench | Single Judge: ShaileSH P. Brahme, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Maharashtra. |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition—Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, valuation of land and trees, and principles for classifying land as irrigated or dry. |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that once a claimant is found entitled to a higher compensation amount based on evidence, the Reference Court must award such compensation notwithstanding any restriction by the claimant to a lower figure, subject to payment of deficit court fees—refusing to do so is a jurisdictional error. Regarding classification, existence of a water source (such as a well) is not in itself enough for land to be treated as permanently irrigated without further proof (e.g., crop patterns, 7/12 extracts). Claims for valuation of trees must be supported by credible expert evidence, with the Reference Court justified in adopting 80% of valuer estimates based on binding precedent. The state cannot adopt a pick-and-choose approach in filing or refraining from appeals, per Supreme Court guidance; discrimination in state conduct is prohibited. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The logic follows Supreme Court direction barring discrimination by state agencies in litigation strategy (Shivappa), requiring compensation to be based on entitlement, not claimant self-restriction (Ambya Kalya Mhatra), and best available evidence for valuation of trees (Chindha Fakira Patil). Reliance on joint measurement, documentary and oral evidence, and proper treatment of expert testimony unless positive rebuttal evidence is produced. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
49 appeals arose from acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, Village Anand (Soigaon, Aurangabad). S.L.A.O. awarded a base rate of Rs 1,200/- per R for Group II (dry land) and separate rates for trees. Possession taken on 21.02.2011; notification under Sec 4(1) issued 27.05.2011. Claimants sought enhancement; the Reference Court variously awarded up to Rs 7,500/- or Rs 8,400/- per R based on evidence. The acquiring body appealed in 17 cases; claimants in all others. The core disputes were rate enhancement, classification of land, tree valuation, and whether courts could award more than claimed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Maharashtra (on issues of compensation enhancement jurisdiction, land classification, and valuation of trees in land acquisition cases). |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on methodology (especially regarding “pick and choose” prohibition and expert evidence on tree valuation); can be cited nationally for ratio on enhancement jurisdiction. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Reference Courts must award compensation based on entitlement proved by evidence, not capped by the amount claimed if court fees are made good.
- Clarifies that existence of a well or water source does not alone establish “irrigated land” status—additional documentary or oral evidence (such as crop records) are required.
- Accepts the methodology of awarding 80% of expert valuer’s estimate for tree valuation, especially when the acquiring authority does not contest the evidence.
- Holds that state authorities cannot selectively appeal against similarly situated claimants, as such “pick and choose” conduct amounts to impermissible discrimination per Supreme Court guidance.
- Distinguishes Bombay HC’s Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) 4 AIRBomR 554, as not applicable where expert’s qualification or evidence was not effectively challenged.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Bombay High Court conducted a detailed review of factual background, compensation awarded, and evidence presented regarding classification and value of land and trees.
- It applied the Supreme Court’s binding ratio in Chindha Fakira Patil regarding tree valuation (80% of expert estimate where claim is credible and unrebutted).
- The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivappa, which prohibits arbitrary or discriminatory conduct by state/government instrumentalities, including “pick and choose” litigation tactics.
- Relied on Ambya Kalya Mhatra (Supreme Court) and coordinate bench judgment in Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, to hold that Reference Courts must award compensation warranted by evidence even if the claimant had restricted his claimed amount, subject to deficit court fee payment.
- The Court examined documentary (joint measurement) and oral (expert) evidence, and found no basis for treating any land as “permanently irrigated” since mere existence of well is insufficient without crop records or 7/12 extracts.
- Distinguished contrary precedent (Land Acquisition Officer, PWD, Altinho) on expert qualifications since the objecting party neither objected at trial nor cross-examined the expert on this ground.
- Found that where the state had not appealed against Reference Court findings in similarly situated cases but had in others, such conduct was discriminatory and unsustainable in law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Claimants:
- The Reference Court erred in restricting rates to specific figures; claimants are entitled to higher rates based on evidence.
- Evidence showing irrigation facilities (e.g., wells) was overlooked; mere pattern of crop is not decisive.
- Claimants with recorded wells are entitled to Rs. 11,200/- per Are.
- Tree valuation is inadequate; expert valuer’s report should be fully accepted due to lack of rebuttal.
- General entitlement to enhanced compensation for land and trees.
Respondent / Acquiring Body:
- The rate fixed by the Reference Court is unreasonable; the S.L.A.O.’s lower rate was appropriate.
- No reliable material justifies enhancement from Rs. 1,200/- per R to higher amounts; sale instances cited by claimants are unreliable.
- Private expert’s valuation of trees is inflated, prepared after the fact, and no notice of site inspection was given.
- Expert in some appeals lacked proper registration and his evidence should be discarded.
- Claimants failed to produce 7/12 extracts to confirm irrigated land classification.
- Reference to Supreme Court precedent should not be blindly applied.
- Claimants restricted their claim and are estopped from seeking further enhancement.
Factual Background
This group of 49 appeals arose from land acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at Village Anand, Taluka Soigaon, District Aurangabad. Possession was taken in February 2011, followed by necessary notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a base compensation of Rs. 1,200 per Are for dry lands and separate amounts for trees. Both the acquiring authorities and claimants challenged the Reference Court’s awards—claimants seeking enhancement and authorities contesting upward revisions, with key disputes centering around land classification, compensation rate, and valuation of trees.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for procedural validity regarding notification and possession dates.
- Applied Land Acquisition Act principles for classification of land: held that classification as “irrigated” or “dry” must be supported by documentary (such as 7/12 extracts or crop records) or credible oral evidence.
- Followed Supreme Court directions that compensation should reflect actual entitlement shown by evidence, not merely the claimed amount, with directions for payment of deficit court fee if awarded sum surpasses the amount claimed.
- Adopted statutory and precedent-based approach for tree valuation grounded in joint measurement, expert valuation reports, and relevant Supreme Court case law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Affirmed the practice that claims restricted to lower compensation do not bar courts from awarding higher compensation if legally entitled, provided deficit court fee is paid; Reference Court’s jurisdiction is clarified in this respect.
- Systematic reliance on tabular summarisation of all 49 appeals to ensure uniformity and transparency in compensation calculation.
- Reiterated procedural requirement that objections to expert qualification must be raised before the Reference Court or in cross-examination; post-hoc challenges will not be entertained.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent on land acquisition compensation and discrimination by state has been affirmed and applied.