Bombay High Court upholds bar on State adopting a discriminatory “pick and choose” approach in challenging compensation awards under the Land Acquisition Act, in line with latest Supreme Court guidance—clarifying that if compensation is accepted for some claimants, selective appeals against others on identical facts are impermissible. Judgment reaffirmed as binding precedent for land acquisition cases in Maharashtra.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3893/2019 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO. 1 AURANGABAD Vs KESHAV ZIPA CHAVHAN (DIED) THR LRS SAVITRIBAI AND ORS; CNR HCBM030474592019 |
| Date of Registration | 18-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench, Single Judge (Hon’ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition, Compensation, Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The cases arose from 49 appeals concerning compulsory acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, District Aurangabad. The SLAO awarded Rs. 1,200/- per Are for both dry and irrigated lands, subsequently enhanced by the Reference Court based on sale exemplars and valuation evidence. The acquiring body filed 17 appeals challenging the enhancement, while claimants filed cross and enhancement appeals; in 15 matters, the acquiring body did not appeal, demonstrating acquiescence to the Reference Court’s award. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra; all land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts handling similar discriminatory appeals in land acquisition; relevant to land acquisition tribunals nationwide |
| Overrules | None specified; Distinguishes Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa Vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018) |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018 4 AIRBomR 554) – on valuer registration, facts not applicable to current proceedings |
| Follows | Shivappa Etc. Vs. Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312); Ambya Kalya Mhatra (2011 SC Supp 625); Chinda Fakira Patil (2011 10 SCC 787) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that if an acquiring authority acquiesces in enhanced compensation in some cases arising from the same acquisition, it cannot selectively appeal similar awards in other cases—discriminatory conduct is barred.
- Courts can award higher compensation than that originally claimed, even if claims were restricted, subject to payment of deficit court fees.
- Land can only be classified as irrigated or seasonally irrigated based on clear evidence (existence of a well is not decisive; crop pattern and documentary evidence must be shown).
- Valuation of trees by a registered private valuer and substantiated by oral evidence may be accepted up to 80% of claimed value if the acquiring body fails to rebut (per Supreme Court precedent).
- Lawyers for claimants may rely on Supreme Court and High Court guidance preventing “pick and choose” appeals by State authorities, citing this judgment as binding authority.
- This ruling harmonises and applies the latest Supreme Court law to factual matrices common in mass land acquisition cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court framed the core issue: whether the acquiring body, after accepting enhanced awards for certain claimants, can discriminate by appealing similar awards for others under the same proceedings.
- The Bombay High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivappa Etc. Vs. Chief Engineer (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312), which prohibits “pick and choose” and mandates uniform treatment for similarly situated claimants.
- In analyzing land rates, it held claimants entitled to Rs. 5,600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8,400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land, denying full irrigation status due to lack of corroborative evidence.
- The principle that higher compensation may be awarded despite restricted claims was reaffirmed (Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal), subject to deficit court fees.
- Tree valuation reports were accepted up to 80%, following Chinda Fakira Patil, as the acquiring body led no rebuttal evidence.
- The Reference Court’s approach to land rate and tree valuation was endorsed, leading to dismissal of the acquiring body’s appeals and partial allowance of claimants’ cross and enhancement appeals.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Claimants):
- Reference Court wrongly restricted compensation to lower figures even if claimants were entitled to more.
- Overlooked irrigation facilities; lands with wells should be classified as irrigated, not dry.
- Claimants entitled to Rs. 11,200/- per Are where a well existed.
- Tree valuation by the expert was adequate and backed by oral evidence; not rebutted by the acquiring body.
- Sought enhancement of compensation for both land and trees.
Respondents (Acquiring Body):
- Reference Court’s rate enhancement was unreasonable and lacked evidentiary basis; Rs. 1,200/- per Are as determined by SLAO was justified.
- No credible evidence for enhancement; disputed validity of sale exemplars.
- Private valuer’s report alleged to be fictitious, afterthought, with questionable methodology.
- Identification and count of trees as per valuer’s report were contested as improbable and unsubstantiated.
- Disputed claim of land being irrigated—no supporting 7/12 extract or crop pattern.
- Claimed valuer lacked proper registration and competence to give expert opinion.
Factual Background
The appeals arose from acquisition of land for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad district. A total of 49 appeals (from both the acquiring body and claimants) arose from the same notification and award dated 24.09.2012, in which the SLAO fixed Rs. 1,200/- per Are for land and determined tree values via joint measurement. Claimants, dissatisfied with compensation and classification of their lands, approached the Reference Court, which enhanced the rates. The acquiring authority appealed against some but not all enhanced awards, leading to claims of discrimination and arguments about rate calculation, proper land classification (irrigated vs. dry), and tree valuation.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 4 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were applied regarding notification, compensation, and reference.
- “Seasonally irrigated” status can only be assigned based on adequate evidence—not merely the existence of a well.
- 7/12 extracts and evidence of crop pattern are essential to substantiate claims of irrigation.
- Even if specific sums were claimed in the reference, the claimant is entitled to full compensation due, subject to deficit court fee, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
Procedural Innovations
- Multiple appeals arising from the same acquisition proceedings were clubbed and decided by a common judgment for judicial economy.
- The court explicitly noted and faulted the discriminatory “pick and choose” strategy adopted by the State, reinforcing the need for consistency and non-discrimination in State litigation policy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies binding Supreme Court authority on non-discrimination by the State in land acquisition matters.