Bombay High Court Recognizes Dairy Losses in Land Compensation
The ruling was issued in Kashinath Dudhaji Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra by Justice Abhay Ahuja. It concerned the acquisition of the appellant’s property, including a cattle shed, under notifications issued pursuant to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The authorities took possession in January 2000.
The property owner first sought a higher valuation through a reference under Section 18. He later asked to amend his claim to include losses caused by the forced closure of his dairy business. The appellant said that 10 milch buffaloes were kept in a permanent shed next to his home and that the animals generated a regular income from milk sales until the acquisition.
To support the amount of the loss, the dairy operator submitted business records and gave sworn evidence covering 32 months of operations. The records included milk deliveries to individual customers, prices charged per litre, spending on feed and fodder, veterinary medicines, the cost of acquiring the herd and agricultural labour payments.
On the basis of those materials, the claimant sought compensation for 150 months of interrupted business, in addition to statutory solatium and interest. The High Court held that commercial milk production linked to the permanent infrastructure on the property fell within the statutory concept of a “benefit arising out of the land” under Section 3(a).
The state had objected to the timing of the amendment. In addressing that issue, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra. Justice Ahuja said that once a dispossessed owner seeks a reference disputing the amount of compensation, the wider question of valuation remains before the Reference Court.
The judgment distinguished between changing the basic nature of a claim after the limitation period and providing evidence of the property’s market value and related economic losses. It said that a claimant could not convert an objection about the amount into an unrelated challenge over apportionment, but could not be prevented on technical grounds from proving losses connected with the acquisition. The decision therefore treats the income from the dairy operation as an economic benefit attached to the occupied property, rather than limiting compensation to the land and physical structures alone.
