The court upheld that negotiated agreements for land compensation cannot be unilaterally altered by subsequent administrative actions, emphasizing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

6 nos. of petitioners have joined together in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the unilateral reduction of the direct purchase price of the land belonging to them. It is the case of the petitioners that such land was purchased for the Asom Mala Project by the Government after a negotiation and thereafter had reduced the agreed price.

2. The facts, stated in brief are that the petitioners are having tea gardens in the district of Golaghat and for the purpose of the Asom Mala Project, lands were required to be acquired. The State Government had notified a scheme vide Gazette notification dated 20.01.2021 for “Land acquisition through direct purchase by way of negotiated settlement for improvement and upgradation of State Highways and Major District Roads under Asom Mala Program and Externally Aided Projects (EAPs)”. The said scheme was formulated to overcome the cumbersome process of acquisition which invariably leads to litigation causing delay, both in completion of the project and also with regard to finalization of the acquisition compensation. Under clause 4.7 of the said scheme, there is a requirement of formation of a District Level Land Purchase Committee to make the negotiations. Clause 4.9 has provided that the price shall be 25% higher on the compensation calculated as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act , 2013 (Act of 2013) with multiplier of market rate of land defined through the Assam Land Acquisition Notification dated 22.12.2014. Under Clause 4.12 the settlement was to be recorded in an agreement.

3. It is contended that under the aforesaid scheme dated 20.01.2021, direct negotiations were held by a duly constituted committee and an amount was agreed upon and the same was recorded in a format “Form B” and accordingly the land was taken over. However, the amount, as agreed to was not paid for which the petitioners had submitted representation dated 16.11.2023. However, the petitioners came to learn that the State authorities have reduced the compensation amount.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently vide a communication dated 03.02.2024 the District Commissioner, Golaghat had informed the petitioners that since there was a reduction in the zonal value of the land in question vide a notification dated 25.08.2023 the said action was taken. The petitioners contend that the reduction in the zonal value was made subsequent to the agreement and in any case would not have any impact on the negotiated agreement and the price reached after such agreement.

5. I have heard Shri BD Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam; Shri P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

6. Shri Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no dispute that the scheme of 20.01.2021 is existing and valid scheme. He has submitted that though subsequently another scheme has been notified on 07.03.2022, the same is substantially similar with the earlier scheme which will not have any impact on the merits of the case of the petitioners. He has submitted that the scheme was introduced to overcome the cumbersome process of acquisition which also consumes a sufficient time. He has submitted that the Purchase Committee is duly constituted which consists of the District Administration, officials of the Public Works Department and other officials so as to come to a reasonable and fair rate. He has submitted that while under the Land Acqu