JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek a direction to be issued to the second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, SLAO), Medium Project, Buldhana, to determine the compensation payable to them in view of the order dated 27.04.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.2285 of 1992 (Krishnabai wd/o Hiralalji Mallawat and ors. vs. The Collector, Buldhana and ors.).

2. The facts relevant for considering the prayers made in the writ petition are that in the Final Development Plan of the City of Buldhana an area admeasuring 7 H 44 R was reserved for extension of the first respondent- Agricultural Produce Market Committee(for short, APMC), Deulgaon-Raja. On 16.03.1990 Notification under Section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act of 1966) came to be issued in that regard. The predecessors of the petitioners challenged the said Notification dated 16.03.1990 in Writ Petition No. 2285 of 1992. During the pendency of those proceedings, the predecessors of the petitioners and the APMC entered into a compromise. As per the terms and conditions agreed, the said petitioners agreed to sell land admeasuring 3 H 60 R equal to 9 acres to the APMC. The APMC passed Resolution on 17.02.2006 recording the aforesaid offer and it agreed to purchase the said land. The said land was to be sold by the petitioners to the APMC at the prevailing market rate as on that date. It was further agreed that fresh valuation would be undertaken by the SLAO which would be accepted by the APMC as well as the petitioners. In case the petitioners were not satisfied of such valuation, their right to claim additional amount by approaching the Court was kept open. It was further recorded that the Director of Marketing had granted permission to enter into such compromise. It was also agreed that the award passed by the SLAO in 1992 was not to be acted upon. A request was thus made to the SLAO to re-value the land admeasuring 3 H 60 R at the current market value. It was stated that the award that would be passed by the SLAO would be binding on both parties. The possession of the said land was to be given within a period of one month on payment of Rs.Five lakhs by the APMC as earnest amount. The agreement of sale was to be registered and the amount of Rs.Five lakhs was to be deducted from the amount of compensation to be determined by the SLAO. By the order dated 27.04.2006 the aforesaid compromise was accepted by the Court. In view of aforesaid, the Notification dated 16.03.1990 came to be quashed and reliefs in terms of Clauses 3 to 11 of the compromise deed came to be granted. Writ Petition No. 2285 of 1992 was accordingly disposed of.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that despite various requests made to the SLAO to determine the market value of the land by acquiring the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894), no steps in that regard were taken. The APMC also made various requests in that regard. Since both the parties had accepted the fact that the land was required to be acquired and its market value ought to be determined, it was necessary to take this aspect to its logical end. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction to be issued to the SLAO.

5. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that despite the clear terms of compromise dated 22.02.2006, the APMC and the SLAO were not interested in initiating and thereafter completing the process of acquisition of the said land. Referring to the various communications on record issued by the APMC, it was submitted that initially request had been made by the APMC by its communications dated 17.06.2009, 11.09.2009, 18.05.2011 and 24.02.2015 to initiate the process of acquisition. The petitioners had also from time to time