The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the consent award, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

JUDGMENT

S.G.MEHARE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The lands of the petitioners were declared to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ( 1894 Act ' for short). However, as no award was passed within 2 years from the declaration, the petitioners approached this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order in W.P. No 5049 of 2015 dated 16th February 2016, declared that the land acquisition proceeding is lapsed. Thereafter, the Requiring Body, the Deputy Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division No. 1/respondent no.5, had given an ofer to the petitioners, that they are ready to purchase their lands directly by private negotiation and invited their consents. The petitioners gave their consent. The same authority by his letter dated 18th October 2016 again ofered the petitioners to purchase the lands by private negotiations. In response thereto the petitioners have executed an agreement on 21st of October 2016 with the Requiring Body.

3. The Government of Maharashtra, by resolution dated 12.05.2015, had constituted a District level compensation determination Committee ( 'the Committee ' for short) headed by the District Collector. The Committee was to consider the factors enumerated in Section 23 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( 2013 Act ' for short). The said Committee in its meeting dated 30.06.2017 had given the approval to the rates proposed @ Rs. 20, 511 per Are to be paid to the petitioners. Again, in the meeting dated 11.10.2017, a detailed report was submitted to the Committee for the approval of rates. In the said meeting the rates were determined @ Rs. 17, 39, 000 per Hector and the total compensation amounts were calculated as per the Annexures attached to it.

4. Then the Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad by letter dated 21.12.2017 requested the Committee to review the rates determined by it in the meeting dated 11.10.2017. The Committee in its meeting dated 24.04.2018 decided to apply the rates as per the ready reckoner. Respondent No. 5/ Requiring Body again by his letter dated 18.12.2017 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad, placed his view that the market value assessed by the Committee in the meeting dated 11.10.2017 has some defciencies and expressed his apprehension that if such high rates are given to the petitioners, it may generate food of compensation petitions by the other land owners. Accordingly, the Superintendent Engineer, by his letter dated 21.12.2017 requested the Collector Aurangabad to review the rates and compensation determined in the Committee meeting dated 11.10.2017. The Committee once again determined the compensation rates in its meeting dated 24.04.2018 in which the Superintending Engineer was the member. The Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 27.06.2018 again pointed out to the Committee the given norms are not applied; hence the compensation should be determined according to the norms. Thereafter, the Committee revised the rates fnally in the meeting dated 29.08.2018. The Requiring Body was satisfed with the norms applied and rates/compensation determined by the Committee.

5. Then Requiring Body/respondent No. 5 by its letter dated 12.09.2018 requested the petitioners to submit their consent letters. He also provided the approved letters and the copy of minutes of the meeting dated 29.08.2018 to the petitioners. The petitioners have accordingly executed the consent letters on 24th of September 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 executed a sale deed on 11.01.2019. In this background, the petitioners approached this Court seeking the relief to hold and declare that the compensation determined in meeting dated 29th of August 2018 by the Committee is not as per the market price, therefore, it is illegal, and direct the Requiring Body to pay the compensation of rupees a