1. Heard. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the letters dated 20-2-2017 and 22-5-2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1, Solapur deducting 10% amount towards royalty (Najrana) from the compensation payable to the petitioner under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they made Application under section 28-A of the said Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of the judgment in respect of the land from the same Notification under section 4 of the said Act. He submits that the said Application under section 28-A of the said Act was decided by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12-11-2012 and held that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 72,56,324/- in respect of the acquired land. Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer has disbursed the said amount on 3-9-2015 however, withheld/deducted a sum of Rs. 7,25,632/- against 10% royalty payable to the Government.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the Government Resolution dated 11-1-2017 for deducting the 10% amount towards royalty. He submits that in view of the said deduction, the petitioners made Application dated 9-2-2017 in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1, Solapur stating that the deduction of 10% royalty is not according to law. He submits that the petitioner has specifically pointed out to the respondent that the Government Resolution dated 11-1-2017 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that the Award was passed in the year 2012 i.e. on 12-11-2012 and thereafter the Government Resolution was issued on 11-1-2017. He submits that the petitioner has specifically pointed out to the respondent that the effect of the Government Resolution is not retrospective, at the most it can be prospective and therefore, there is no question of deducting 10% royalty amount. He submits that in spite of clarifying all these facts, the respondents, by their letters dated 20-2-2017 and 22-5-2017 rejected the petitioners’ Application dated 9-2-2017 for refund of 10% royalty amount and also interest under section 34 of the said Act for delayed payment. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade, 1985 Mh. L.J. 170 (F.B.) held that at the most the Government can deduct only amount equivalent to 20 times of the assessment under the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955. He relies on para 13 and 14 of the said judgment which read thus:

“13. It would, therefore, be necessary to estimate reduction of the market value on account of such restriction. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Yachendra vs. Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, AIR 1979 SC 869 has considered how there is an element of guesswork in such valuation. The relevant head-note reads as follows:

“The estimation of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess.”

The guesswork would be more when one has to value an land with restriction. The payment of twenty times the assessment is contemplated by Government orders for relaxation of the restriction if the property is an agricultural land. We do not understand these Government orders to mean that they have determined the amount by any precise or concise arithmetical calculations. However, we accep