The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that land acquisition authorities cannot adopt discriminatory “pick and choose” tactics in appeals—if compensation enhancement is accepted for some claimants in a single acquisition scheme, other similarly placed claimants cannot be singled out for challenge by the acquiring body. This binding authority upholds the Supreme Court’s view, ensures equal treatment of claimants, clarifies calculation of compensation for dry and irrigated lands, and determines the evidentiary value of expert opinions on tree valuation for similar cases under the Land Acquisition Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/1706/2025 of THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION 1, AURANGABAD THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD Vs SUDAM SANDU RATHOD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030125732020 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court in Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer & Ors (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312) |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition; Compensation Calculation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the State/acquiring authority cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach, accepting Reference Court awards for some claimants while contesting them for others arising from the same acquisition proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court found such discriminatory conduct constitutionally impermissible and a violation of equality. Additionally, the Court ruled that claimants restricting their claim in pleadings are still entitled to full compensation if entitlement is proven, subject to payment of deficit court fees. The methodology for treating land as irrigated/dry depends on cogent evidence; mere existence of a well does not suffice without supporting crop or irrigation records. For tree valuation, unchallenged expert evidence is to be accepted in absence of rebuttal, affirming that joint measurement listings and expert reports are proper bases for compensation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The group of 49 appeals arose from acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, District Aurangabad. Both acquiring body and claimants filed appeals against the Reference Court’s enhanced compensation awards for land and trees. Some cases saw the acquiring body not appealing (accepting the awards) while appealing others. Disputes centered on proper land categorization, tree valuation, and uniformity of compensation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Maharashtra (Bombay High Court jurisdiction) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court to the extent of reasoning affirmed |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL) vs. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (facts held distinguishable regarding valuer’s registration and tree valuation) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirmed that the State/acquiring body cannot act discriminatorily by appealing awards for some claimants but not others from the same acquisition scheme.
- Even if a claimant restricts the compensation amount claimed, courts can award more if entitlement is proved (subject to deficit court fee).
- Mere existence of a well does not result in land being treated as “irrigated”—positive evidence (e.g., 7/12 crop records) is required.
- In tree valuation, joint measurement records and uncontroverted expert valuation are strong proof; acquiring authority must rebut with evidence if it wishes to contest.
- The reasoning is binding on all similar cases where the State adopts inconsistent approaches within a common acquisition proceeding.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Discriminatory Appeal Conduct: The Court addressed the State’s conduct—accepting Reference Court awards in many cases while challenging similar awards in others from the same acquisition. Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in Shivappa’s case, the Court held that such “pick and choose” tactics violate equality and administrative fairness. It is impermissible for the State to treat similarly situated claimants differently in the absence of justifiable distinguishing factors.
- Compensation Calculation Methodology:
- The Reference Court had relied on sale instances (especially lands with Gut No. 129) and expert reports, enhancing compensation above the amount set by the S.L.A.O.
- The High Court agreed with the basic methodology, refusing further enhancement sought by claimants for lack of evidence (notably, absence of records like 7/12 extracts to establish nature of land as irrigated).
- The Court clarified that a land is to be regarded as “seasonally irrigated” if a well exists, but not as “permanently irrigated” in the absence of supporting evidence.
- Legal Entitlement Despite Pleadings Restriction: Citing Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal, the Court held that claimants cannot be denied full compensation solely because they limited their claims in pleadings; if entitlement is proved, the award must reflect the true value.
- Tree Valuation Principles: The Court accepted tree valuations based on joint measurement and uncontroverted expert reports, following Chinda Fakira Patil. Where the acquiring body failed to challenge expert evidence or prove exaggeration, the Court confirmed the award to claimants (with an 80% acceptance margin).
- Expert Valuer Competence: Objections regarding the competence/registration of expert valuers were addressed—distinguished on facts from the Panaji PWD case, since no specific challenge was made in evidence to credentials or credibility.
- Final Relief: All appeals by the acquiring body were dismissed; claimants’ appeals partly allowed where proper land categorization or compensation had been erroneously restricted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Reference Court erred in restricting rates; claimants are entitled to higher rates where justified.
- Lands were wrongly treated as dry/seasonally irrigated; existence of wells and irrigation facilities was disregarded.
- Valuation of trees was inadequate; expert evidence should have been fully accepted.
- Claimants entitled to enhancement of compensation for both land and trees.
Respondent
- Reference Court’s enhanced rates are unreasonable and unsupported by reliable evidence.
- Sale instances relied on for enhancement are not comparable.
- Expert’s report on tree valuation is unreliable, prepared post-facto and without proper notice.
- No production of 7/12 crop records by claimants to establish irrigation.
- Competence of private valuer is questionable; expert evidence should have been discarded.
Factual Background
The case relates to 49 consolidated appeals stemming from the acquisition of lands for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank project at village Anad, District Aurangabad. The S.L.A.O. offered compensation in a common award in 2012, fixing rates for dry and irrigated lands, and valuing trees based on joint measurements. Dissatisfied claimants sought enhancement before the Reference Court, which granted higher compensation relying on certain sale exemplars and partial acceptance of private tree valuations. Both the acquiring body and claimants pursued multiple appeals against the Reference Court’s decisions, focusing on uniformity of compensation, appropriate land categorization, and validity of tree valuation.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1) notifications, powers of S.L.A.O., scope of Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation, and the legal standards for treating acquired land as dry or irrigated.
- Evidentiary Requirements: Court discussed the necessity of documentary and oral evidence (e.g., 7/12 extracts, expert reports) to establish land classification and value of trees.
- Case Law References: Applied and distinguished Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents on discriminatory state conduct, valuation, and procedural entitlements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are reported in the available judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court consolidated 49 appeals for common adjudication to avoid contradictory outcomes.
- Clarified that restriction of claim in pleadings does not halt the court from granting full compensation entitlement, subject to payment of deficit court fees if so awarded.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court (Shivappa) and other precedents on State discrimination and compensation enhancement were followed and applied.