The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, holds that the acquiring authority cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach—accepting compensation awards for some claimants while appealing against others in similar circumstances—reaffirming the Supreme Court’s guidance on the prohibition of discrimination by state bodies. This judgment upholds, clarifies, and applies established precedent, and serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, with persuasive value elsewhere for land acquisition matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/3620/2022 of MADAN MOHANLAL RATHOD Vs THE EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. NO.1, AURANGABAD AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM030009792022 |
| Date of Registration | 28-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (Acquiring Body appeals); PARTLY ALLOWED (Claimants’ appeals) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Aurangabad Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Bombay High Court; Persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition; Discrimination under Article 14; Compensation computation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The acquiring body (state/instrumentality) is prohibited from appealing compensation awards for some claimants while acquiescing to identical awards for others in similar circumstances, as this constitutes prohibited discrimination under Article 14 and the Apex Court’s guidance. Despite this discriminatory conduct, the Court conducts an independent objective scrutiny into the correctness of the compensation rates as determined by the Reference Court. The Reference Court’s methodology in fixing separate rates for dry and seasonally irrigated land, based on documentary evidence—including sale exemplars, expert valuer testimony, and the presence/absence of irrigation sources—is affirmed, with specific rates fixed accordingly. The Court clarifies that claimants are entitled to the compensation they are legally due regardless of whether their original claim was for a lower amount, provided court fees are paid, and tree valuations based on expert opinion stand unless successfully rebutted by the acquiring authority. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Group of 49 appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings for Charu Tanda Percolation Tank, village Anad, district Aurangabad. In several matters, the acquiring body did not appeal the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation, but challenged the same in others, though facts were similar. Reference Court had fixed different rates for dry and irrigated lands and allowed tree valuation based on expert evidence. Both parties cross-appealed on compensation, land categorisation, and tree valuation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court; all land acquisition proceedings involving public authorities and similar fact situations |
| Overrules | None specified; does not overrule any Supreme Court or High Court precedent |
| Distinguishes | Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (CELL), Altinho, Panaji, Goa v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018), on the facts regarding valuer’s competence |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that the state/acquiring body cannot discriminate by appealing compensation awards only in selected similar cases; such selective challenge is a violation of Article 14 as per Supreme Court precedent.
- Objectively confirms that landowners’ entitlement to compensation is determined by actual legal entitlement, not the restricted claim amount—higher compensation can be awarded if justified, provided deficit court fees are paid.
- Clarifies that mere existence of a well is insufficient to treat land as permanently irrigated in absence of documentary evidence like 7/12 extracts or crop patterns; such lands are treated as seasonally irrigated.
- Confirms that tree valuation based on expert reports is valid unless rebutted by the acquiring authority; mere allegations or delayed objections on valuer competence are insufficient.
- Confirms correct rates: Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8400/- per Are for seasonally irrigated land (plus 10% where applicable).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Discrimination in Appeals by Acquiring Authority: The Court began by noting that the acquiring body appealed Reference Court awards in some (but not all) similar cases, despite being content with others. This “pick and choose” approach was held to be discriminatory, directly applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer (2023), which prohibits such state conduct under Article 14.
- Objective Scrutiny Despite Discrimination: Notwithstanding the prohibited discriminatory conduct, the Court independently scrutinised the Reference Court’s findings on compensation rates, tree valuation, and the categorisation of land as irrigated or dry.
- Compensation Rates and Evidence: The Reference Court’s reliance on a sale instance dated 13.01.2011 for comparable land and supportive documentary/expert evidence was endorsed. The Court fixed Rs. 5600/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 8400/- for seasonally irrigated land, clarifying that claimants can receive what they are legally entitled to, even if they claimed less, in line with Ambya Kalya Mhatra and Bombay HC precedent.
- Categorisation of Land: Permanent irrigation requires evidence beyond the mere existence of a well; without documentary proof (e.g., 7/12 extract), such lands are only seasonally irrigated. The Reference Court’s classification was affirmed.
- Tree Valuation: The approach of the Reference Court in accepting expert tree valuation (Dr. Patil) to the extent of 80% (as guided in Chinda Fakira Patil) was upheld. The acquiring authority’s objections to the valuer’s competence or methodology, in absence of evidence, were rejected; mere procedural allegations cannot defeat substantive expert evidence.
- Distinguishing Precedent: The Court distinguished Land Acquisition Officer, PWD v. Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar (2018), as in the present case there was neither objection to valuer’s competence nor cross-examination to impeach credibility.
- Relief Ordered: Appeals by the acquiring body were dismissed. Claimant appeals were partly allowed, awarding the correct rate with necessary clarification on court fees and computation. Awards in all other respects were confirmed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Claimants):
- Reference Court erred by restricting compensation to claimed figure when higher amount was due.
- Evidence of wells should justify treatment as irrigated land, not just seasonal.
- Valuation of trees was inadequate; expert valuer’s report should be fully accepted where not rebutted.
- All claimants are entitled to higher compensation rates and proper tree valuation.
Respondents (Acquiring Body):
- Reference Court’s enhanced rates are unreasonable and unsupported by reliable sale instances.
- Valuation of trees by the claimants’ expert is fictitious/unreliable; reports prepared after substantial delay and without necessary inspections.
- Expert’s reports should be discarded due to lack of requisite registration and notice.
- Claimants did not produce 7/12 extracts or evidence regarding the crop, so lands should not be treated as irrigated.
- Once claimants restricted their compensation claim, they are estopped from seeking more.
Factual Background
A group of 49 first appeals arose out of land acquisition for the Charu Tanda Percolation Tank at village Anad, Aurangabad District. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a common award on 24.09.2012, fixing compensation for lands and trees. Dissatisfied, claimants sought references, resulting in the Reference Court enhancing rates based mostly on select sale transaction evidence and expert tree valuations. The acquiring body appealed awards in some cases but not in others; conversely, claimants sought more in cross-appeals or standalone claims. Disputes centered on land categorisation as dry or irrigated and adequacy of tree valuation evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4 (notifications and proceedings); Section 23 (compensation computation).
- The Reference Court’s duty to determine compensation under S. 23, with recourse to comparable sale instances, expert valuation, and documentary evidence.
- No formal reading down or expansive interpretation; reflects standard judicial evidentiary analysis and statutory application.
- No constitutional provisions were invoked beyond application of Article 14 as per Supreme Court guidance on state non-discrimination.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- None recorded; standard appellate procedure following reference applications and group hearing of related appeals.
- Noted that objective scrutiny is conducted even where state conduct is discriminatory.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies and clarifies existing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents on state discrimination and compensation methodology.