Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Land Acquisition Award Under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Reference Court's Enhancement of Compensation Upheld as No Error of Jurisdiction Found.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-05-19 02:48:46

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ramubai Krushna Patil, filed three writ petitions (WP No. 10896/2025, WP No. 10897/2025, WP No. 10898/2025) challenging the award of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for a public purpose, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran, District Raigad, determined compensation. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the petitioner sought a reference under Section 18, which was adjudicated by the Reference Court. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Reference Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation beyond the amount claimed by the petitioner. The respondents, including the State and other landowners, opposed the petitions. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Reference Court acts as a civil court and has the jurisdiction to determine the correct market value of the acquired land. The award of enhanced compensation, even if higher than the amount claimed, does not constitute an error of jurisdiction. The court further observed that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be used to correct errors of fact or law unless there is a patent error of jurisdiction. Since the Reference Court's decision was based on evidence and within its jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Reference Court - Jurisdiction - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The petitioner challenged the Reference Court's award enhancing compensation, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding an amount higher than what was claimed. The High Court held that the Reference Court acts as a civil court and has the power to determine the correct market value, and the award of enhanced compensation does not amount to an error of jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference with findings of fact - The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised to correct errors of fact or law unless there is a patent error of jurisdiction. The Reference Court's decision being based on evidence and within its jurisdiction, no interference was warranted. (Paras 4-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can interfere with the award of the Reference Court enhancing compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation beyond the amount claimed by the petitioner.

Final Decision

All three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Land Acquisition Act
1894
Section 18
Reference Court
Writ Jurisdiction
Compensation Enhancement
Error of Jurisdiction

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:4573

Writ Petition No. 10896 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10897 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10898 of 2025

2026-01-29

N. J. Jamadar, J.

2026:BHC-AS:4573

Mr. Saurabh Patil, a/w Kshema Mahuli, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State – Respondent No.1 in all WPs. Mr. Saurabh Butala, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 18 in all WPs.

Ramubai Krushna Patil

The State Of Maharashtra Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran, District Raigad & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to quash the Reference Court's award enhancing compensation for land acquisition.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation beyond the amount claimed by the petitioner.

Previous Decisions

The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation, which was then referred to the Reference Court under Section 18, which enhanced the compensation.

Issues

Whether the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by awarding compensation higher than the amount claimed by the petitioner. Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 can interfere with the Reference Court's award on the ground of error of jurisdiction.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Reference Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed. The respondents argued that the Reference Court has the power to determine the correct market value and the award was within its jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acts as a civil court and has the jurisdiction to determine the correct market value of the acquired land. The award of enhanced compensation, even if higher than the amount claimed, does not constitute an error of jurisdiction. The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised to correct errors of fact or law unless there is a patent error of jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

The Reference Court acts as a civil court and has the power to determine the correct market value. The award of enhanced compensation does not amount to an error of jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised to correct errors of fact or law.

Procedural History

The petitioner's land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The petitioner filed three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Reference Court's award. The High Court dismissed all petitions.