Honble YADAV, J. – All these petitioners relate allotment of land in their favour by Sub Divisional Officer of Bikaner. The land of all these petitioners was acquired for Mahajan Field Firing Range in Bikaner District. (2). After acquisition of land of the petitioners for aforesaid purposes the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975( in short ` the Rules of 1975) read with Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (in short ` the Rules of 1970) and Section 264 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1965 (in short ` the Act of 1965) has issued the Notification No.F. 3(8) /G.S.R.162,Rev./Col./81,dt.23.11.1985, Raj.Gaz.Ex.Pt.IV- C(I),dated 10.1.1986,P.339. The aforesaid notification is quoted below in extenso:– "1. The families displaced from the Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, hereinafter referred to as the displaced families, shall be offered Barani land/Command/Uncommand Land in Bikaner dis- trict, whether in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project Area or outside such area. 2. The price for the Barani Land shall be charged at the rate of Rs.300/- per bigha. 3. The displaced families interested in being allotted land in the command or uncommand areas as the Indira Gandhi Nahar project may be allotted land in such area at the price charged at two times the reserve price of such land prescribed in rule 17 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project Area) Rules,1975. 4. Two bighas of uncommand/barani land or bigha of command land in the Mahajan Field Firing Range shall be computed to be equal to one bigha of command land in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project Area. 5. The total land to be alloted to a displaced family shall be equivalent to the land in area from which such family has been displaced subject to ceiling limit is prescribed in the law for the time being in force." (3). All the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions for quashing the demand of price at market rate of the land allotted to them in pursuance of the departmental instructions/circular dated 9.10.1987, Anx. 5 to the writ petition filed by Smt. Tulsi & Ors. All the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions for quashing the demand of price at market rate of the land allotted to them in pursuance of the departmental instructions/circular dated 9.10.1987, Anx. 5 to the writ petition filed by Smt. Tulsi & Ors. The same departmental instructions/circular fixing price of land at market rate are also filed in other writ petitions making demand of price of the land in dispute at the market rate. (4). The aforesaid departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 and notices for demanding price at market rate have been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the demand of price of land in dispute at market rate on the basis of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 is per-se illegal, therefore, the demand notices as well as aforesaid departmental instructions/circular fixing price of land at market rate are liable to be quashed. (5). At the request of the learned counsel for the parties all the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together as the points involved, grievances expressed and reliefs sought in all these petitions are the same hence I propose to dispose them off by a common order treating SB Civil Writ Petition No. 990/1992 as a leading case in which reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. (6). The reliefs sought by the petitioners in aforesaid writ petitions are being opposed by the respondents by filing returns on the ground inter-alia that the petitioners were earlier charged price of Barani land as prescribed under the notification dated 23.11.1985 @ Rs,300/- per bigha but when the said land was brought in Indira Gandhi Nahar Project Area and became command land they are entitled to charge difference of price at market rate in pursuance of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987. (7). (7). From the averments made in the writ petition as well as the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is evident that the petitioners have been allotted land under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 which provides allotment of Government land special cases and they had deposited the price for the land in accordance with the notification issued for allotment of land in dispute to them on 23.11.1985 but the answering respondents had issued demand notices for realisation of difference of price at market rate in accordance with the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 by virtue of which the market price of the land in dispute has been re-fixed by colonisation department. (8). Now the questions which this court is called upon to decide in the instant writ petitions are firstly as to whether if the land in dispute has been allotted under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 which provides allotment of Government land in special cases, the petitioners are entitled to pay the price as fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 or after payment of the reserve price of the land in accordance with the aforesaid notification the respondents are further entitled to realise the difference of price at market rate of the land in dispute from the petitioners in pursuance of the departmental instructions / Circular dated 19.10.1987 issued by colonisation department? Secondly, whether the notification dated 23.11.1985 has fixed scale of price only for Barani land or it has also. determined the price of command and uncommand land in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project area ? Thirdly, whether the power for fixation of price of Government land by State Government as provided under Act No. XXVII of 1954 read with Rules of 1975 framed thereunder can said to be co-terminous with the power of colonisation department to fix or refix the reserve price at market rate of the land in dispute of the Government land ? Fourthly, whether the statutory notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Govt. Fourthly, whether the statutory notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Govt. for allotment of Government land in dispute to the petitioners would operate as a promissory estoppel as the said notification contains a representa- tion made on behalf of the State Government intending that the petitioners would act upon its representation and factually the petitioners had acted upon said representation and have altered their positions by depositing the reserve price fixed in the said notification and also by obtaining patta as well as possession of the disputed land? (9). For effective decision of the aforesaid questions it would be relevant to have a glance of some of the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act,1954 (in short the Act No.XXVII of 1954) is well as some of the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Rules of 1975 which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 read with Section 28 of the Act No.XXVII of 1954. (10). A bare reading of Section 7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 provides about issue of statements of conditions of tenancy. Sub- section(1) of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act provides that the State Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as may be prescribed while sub-section(2) of the said section further provides that the State Government may issue a statement or statements of the conditions on which it is willing to grant land in a colony to tenants. (11). In my humble opinion field occupied by sub-section (1) of Sec.7 of the aforesaid Act is not same as contemplated under sub- section(2) of Sec.7 of the said Act. In my opinion the field occupied by sub-section(1) of Sec.7 of the Act includes in its ambit the normal modes of allotment of Government land as prescribed under Rule 12, Rule 12 -A and Rule 18 of the Rules of 1975 while sub-section(2)of Sec.7 of the Act contemplates about allotment of Government land in special cases as envisaged under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975. (12). A bare reading of Rules of 1975 further indicates that these rules have been framed in exercise of Section 7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 read with Section 28 of the said Act. (12). A bare reading of Rules of 1975 further indicates that these rules have been framed in exercise of Section 7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 read with Section 28 of the said Act. These rules prescribed two modes of allotment of land to eligible persons, one normal mode of allotment of land prescribed under Rules 12,12-A and 13 giving guidelines for allotment of land to agriculture graduates, for allotment of land to ex-service men and allotment of land to other categories of persons respectively. These three categories of allotment of land fall within the normal mode of allotment of land. (13). Similarly under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 guidelines for allotment of Government land in special cases has been provided which falls within the category of special mode of allotment. The present cases in hand are the cases which are to be governed by rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 for allotment of Government land in special cases which has been candidly admitted on behalf of the respondents in their reply. (14). In my humble opinion the normal mode of allotment contemplated under rules 12,12-A and 13 would come within the perview of sub-section (1) of sec.7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 according to which the State Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as may be prescribed. The conditions for allotment of land in normal mode have been prescribed under rules 12,12-A and 13 of the Rules of 1975 and scale of price and mode of payment for such allotment of land has been prescribed under rule 17 of the said Rules while allotment of Government land in special cases falls within the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 according to which the State Government may issue a statement or statements of the conditions on which it is willing to grant land in a colony to tenants. Therefore, the cases falling under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 for allotment of Government land in special cases the terms and conditions of allotment as well as payment of price and mode of payment is to be looked into in the statement itself issued by the State Government. (15). Therefore, the cases falling under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 for allotment of Government land in special cases the terms and conditions of allotment as well as payment of price and mode of payment is to be looked into in the statement itself issued by the State Government. (15). Indisputably the allotment of land in dispute of the petitioners have been made under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 allotting the Government land in special cases because their lands have been acquired for the public purposes of Mahajan Field Firing Range Bikaner hence the respondents have no justification what so ever to travel beyond the terms and conditions stipulated by the State Government in its notification dated 23.11.1985 published on 10.1.1986 regarding scale of price and mode of its payments. (16). A bare look of the aforesaid notification throws a flood of light that the State Government in its aforesaid notification has already determined the scale of price and mode of payment, therefore, the respondents have no justification whatsoever to issue demand notices for realisation of market price from the petitioner on the basis of so called departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987. (17). A close scrutiny of the notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government published on 10.1.1986 leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the government itself has fixed the price for the Barani land @ Rs.300/- per bigha in para 2 of the aforesaid notification . In para 3 of the aforesaid notification the State Government has clearly made a statement that the displaced families interested in being allotted land in the command or uncommand areas in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project may be allotted land in such area at the price charged at two times the reserve price of such land prescribed in rule 17 of the Rules of 1975. (18). It is true that the proviso added to rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 has also made applicable in the notification dated 23.11.1985 for payment of price of the Government land allotted to the petitioners provided the class of soil allotted to them who are landless persons other than scheduled caste or scheduled tribes is either Johar Paitan situated any where or such Government land allotted to them is situated within a radius of 12 km. from the periphery of a city having population of one lakh persons or more or within a radius of 8 km. from the periphery of a town having population of fifty thousand or more but less than one lakh or within a radius of 3 km. from the periphery of a town having population of twenty five thousand or more but less than fifty thousand in such a situation the scale of the price to be charged shall be four times of the reserve price fixed by the State Government for that class of land but from an allottee belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribes the scale of price shall be double the reserve price mentioned above. (19). It is evident from the discussion made hereinbelow that the Government authorities have also pressed into service the proviso added to rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 for realising four times of the reserve price of Johar Paitan land from Tulsi and others which is legally justified. (20). Thus once it is established that the State Government itself has determined the scale of price in para 3 of the notification dated 23.11.1985 to the land allotted to the petitioners either in command area or in uncommand area in Indira Gandhi Nahar Project area the price of the land in dispute is liable to be charged at two times the reserve price of such land prescribed in rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 with a rider to the proviso added to the said rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 and as such the respondents are not entitled to charge the price other than the price stipulated in the aforesaid notification dated 23.11.1985. (21). For correct appreciation of the dispute between the parties the rele- vant provisions of rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 which was in existence on the date of notification is reproduced below for ready reference :– R.17-Scale of price and mode of payment: (1) For Government land allotted under these rules, the price at the following scale for each soil class as sanctioned by the Collec-tor, shall be charged from the allottee:– S. No. Soil Class Price per bigha Price per Murabba of25 bighas (6.32 hactares) 1. Nali Rs. 2,975/- Rs. 74,375/- 2. Light Loan Rs. 2,082/- Rs. 52,050/- 3. Sandy loan Rs. 1,487/- Rs. 37,175/- 4. Un-command/Barani Rs. 416/- Rs. Nali Rs. 2,975/- Rs. 74,375/- 2. Light Loan Rs. 2,082/- Rs. 52,050/- 3. Sandy loan Rs. 1,487/- Rs. 37,175/- 4. Un-command/Barani Rs. 416/- Rs. 10,400/- Provided that for the Johar Paitan land situated anywhere or the Government land situated within a radius of 12 km. from the periphery of a city having population of one lakh persons or more, or within a radius of 8 km. from the periphery of a town having population of fifty thousand or more but less than one lakh, or within a radius of 3 km. from the periphery of a town having population of twenty five thousand or more but less than fifty thousand is allotted to any landless person other than the person of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the scale of price to be charged shall be four times of the reserve price fixed by the Government for that class of land, but from an allottee belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the scale of price shall be double the reserve price mentioned above." (22). It is evident from rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 that although in the aforesaid rule the scale of price for uncommand Barani land was indicated as Rs.416/- per bigha but in contravention of the aforesaid scale of price the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 has fixed and determined the reserve price for Barani land @ Rs.300/- per bigha only. In view of the aforesaid difference of reserve price to the extent of variance of scale of price fixed under rule 17 and the notification dated 23.11.1985 the price fixed by the State Government in the notification would prevail. Similarly the scale of reserve price fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 about the land in dispute allotted to the petitioners in command area would prevail over the circular/departmental instructions dated 19.10.87 and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. (23). Similarly the scale of reserve price fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 about the land in dispute allotted to the petitioners in command area would prevail over the circular/departmental instructions dated 19.10.87 and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. (23). I am of the opinion that the State Government in its notification dated 23.11.85 has also extended the applicability of the proviso of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 about the reserve price for the Johar Paitan land situated anywhere and other Government land situated with specific radius within the periphery of a city or town as enumerated in the proviso but the mode of payment prescribed under sub-rules 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 have not been extended. It is evident from plain reading of rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 that reserve price prescribed under the said rules is recoverable in the instalments which are fixed by State Govt. itself in the said rule but no such instalments have been fixed by the State Govt. in the notification dated 23.11.1985. (24). In the instant cases it is admitted that in case of Smt.Tulsi & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 990/92 the class of soil was Johar Paitan hence on 9.2.1987 the Sub Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner issued a notice to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition directing them to deposit Rs.1,03,365/- in the State treasury on the ground that the sale price of Johar Paitan land shall be four times of the reserve price and in pursuance of the aforesaid demand notice sent by the Sub Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner on 9.2.1987 the aforesaid amount was deposited in the State Treasury on 15.4.1987. This demand was raised @ Rs.1200/- per bigha, four times of Rs.300/-,of Barani land per bigha as fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985. The original notice dated 9.2.1987 is filed with the aforesaid writ petition and marked as Anx.2 and the photostat copy of the challan in proof of deposit of the aforesaid amount in the State Treasury on 15.4.1987 is also filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 990/92 and marked as Anx.3 to the aforesaid writ petition. (25). The original notice dated 9.2.1987 is filed with the aforesaid writ petition and marked as Anx.2 and the photostat copy of the challan in proof of deposit of the aforesaid amount in the State Treasury on 15.4.1987 is also filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 990/92 and marked as Anx.3 to the aforesaid writ petition. (25). The averments made in para 5 of the writ petition about deposit of Rs.1,03,365/- four times of reserve price at the rate of Rs.300/- per bigha have not been disputed by the answering respondents in para 5 of their reply. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above I am of the opinion that the statutory reserve price fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 cannot be allowed to be transgressed by the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 issued from the colonisation Department demanding the market price from the petitioners. The words at market rate appearing in the departmental instructions/circular dt.19.10.1987 are not in consonance with the reserve price fixed by the State Government in its notification dated 23.11.1985 about the land allotted to the petitioners both in the command and uncommand areas in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project , therefore, the respondents are not entitled to issue demand notice against the petitioners for realisation of price at market rate fixed in the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 issued from the Colonisation Department. (26). Once the State Government undet sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of the Act No. XXVII of 1954 had issued a statement fixing scale of reserve price regarding Barani land, command land or uncommand areas in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project by way of issuing notification dated 23.11.85 the same cannot be superseded by any strech of imagination by the colonisation department by way of issuing departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987. In fact the petitioners are liable to pay the reserve price of the land in dispute strictly in accordance with the notification dated 23.11.1985 which they have already paid. In fact the answering respondents are claiming additional price of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.87 which is not permissible under the Act No.XXVII of 1954 and the Rules of 1975 framed thereunder. (27). In fact the answering respondents are claiming additional price of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.87 which is not permissible under the Act No.XXVII of 1954 and the Rules of 1975 framed thereunder. (27). It is well to remember that statutory notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government fixing scale of reserve price of the disputed land cannot be allowed to be superseded by the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 as claimed by the answering respondents. In my humble opinion the impugned departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 has been issued against the mandatory provisions contemplated under sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 as well as rule 20 of the Rules of 1975 framed under the aforesaid Act. It is non- est and can be ignored by this Court. (28). It is pertinent to mention that for allotment of land in normal mode of allotment as contemplated under rules 12,12-A and 13 of the Rules of 1975 the State Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) of Sec. 7 read with Sec.28 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 can prescribe rules for scale of price and about its mode of payment but where allotment has been made under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 allotting Government land in special cases which is to be treated to have been framed in exercise of sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of the aforesaid Act such allotment of land are not subject to the scale of reserve price prescribed in the Rules of 1975 unless it is specifically made applicable by State Government as has been done in present cases by extending the definition of scale of reserve price provided under rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 in the notification dated 23.11.1985 while State Government expressing its willingness to grant land to the petitioners in command or uncommand areas in Indira Gandhi Nahar Project. (29). (29). Here in the instant cases the Government has already fixed the scale of price both for command and uncommand land in the notification dated 23.11.1985 treating it allotment of land to the petitioners under rule 24 of the Rules 1975, therefore, even the State Government cannot be allowed to supersede the scale of price already fixed by it in the notification dated 23.11.1985 which was issued by it in exercise of its power under rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 having nexus with sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954. (30). The aforesaid interpretation of sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of Act No. XXVII of 1954 as well as Rules 12, 12-A 13,17 and 24 of the Rules of 1975 can make these mandatory provisions workable. In my opinion any departure from the aforesaid interpretation would make the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.7 of the aforesaid Act as well as rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 as redundant which is not permissible under the rule of inter-pretation of a statutory provision. (31). A close scrutiny of provisions of rule 20 of the Rules of 1975 provides that only it is State Government which has been authorised to fix the reserve price of Government land and until the State Govt. fixed the reserve price the scales of price as given in rule 17 shall be deemed to be the reserve price. (32). Thus neither under the Act No. XXVII of 1954 nor under the Rules of 1975 colonisation department or colonisation commissioner or any other deligatee of State Government have been authorised to fix the reserve price of the Govt. land which has been allotted to the petitioners. The power of State Govt. to fix reserve price of Govt. Barani land , command and uncommand are as in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project under the Act No. XXVII of 1954 and rules framed thereunder cannot be said to be co-terminous with the power of colonisation department , colonisation commissioner or any other deligatee of State Government. In the present cases no foundation has been laid by the respondents in their reply that State Government has delegated its power of fix or refix the reserve price of the land in dispute allotted to the petitioners, there-fore, this question is left open to be decided in appropriate case where such foundation is laid. (33). In the present cases no foundation has been laid by the respondents in their reply that State Government has delegated its power of fix or refix the reserve price of the land in dispute allotted to the petitioners, there-fore, this question is left open to be decided in appropriate case where such foundation is laid. (33). There is yet another reason not to allow the contesting respondents to charge market price of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 in view of the decision rendered by the apex court in the case of M/s Motilal Padmpath Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. State of UP & Ors. (1), where Honble Bhagwati J.(the then speaking for the Court) ruled while enunciating the doctrine of promissory estoppel that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear an unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party to whom the promise was made. Such promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. (34). It is further ruled by the apex Court in the case of M/s MP Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable to government . It is ruled by the apex court that where government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and in fact the promisee acting in reliance on it alters his position the government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the government at the instance of the promisee. (35). In the instant cases it is not disputed before me that in pursuance of the notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government the petitioners have acted upon and after paying the price fixed by the State Govt. (35). In the instant cases it is not disputed before me that in pursuance of the notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government the petitioners have acted upon and after paying the price fixed by the State Govt. in the aforesaid notification land in dispute has been allotted to them and they have taken possession in pursuance of allotment in their favour. The terms and conditions of the notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government made a promise to allot the Government land in dispute to the petitioners on a reserve price fixed by it about command and uncommand land both in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project intending that it would be acted upon by the petitioners and in fact the petitioners acting in reliance of the said notification dated 23.11.1985 alter their position, therefore, in such a situation the claim of the answering respondents to realise the market price of the land in dispute from the petitioners on the basis of the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 which is more than the reserve price fixed by the State Government in the notification dated 23.11.1985 is most inequitable which cannot be allowed to be enforced. (36). It is well to remember that principle of promissory estoppel has not a limited application by way of defence but it is also available to the petitioners in the instant cases as a cause of action in order to satisfy the sense of equity. The petitioners in the present cases cannot be allowed to suffer any detriment in breach of the notification dated 23.11.1985 by issuing departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 compelling the petitioners to pay the price of the land more than fixed by the State Government in its notification dated 23.11.85. (37). In view of the aforesaid discussions made in the preceding paragraphs of this order my answer to four questions formulated in paragraph 8 of the order are as follows:– (1) The first part of the question No.1 is answered in affirmative and it is held that after payment of the reserve price of the land in dispute in accordance with the notification dated 23.11.1985 the respondents are not entitled to realise the difference of price at market rate of the land in dispute from the petitioners in pursuance of the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987. (2) The second question is answered in affirmative holding that notification dated 23.11.1985 has not fixed reserve price only for Barani land but said notification has fixed reserved price for both command and uncommand land in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project. (3) My answer to question No.3 is in negative holding that the power for fixation of reserve price as contemplated under Act No. XXVII of 1954 read with Rules of 1975 framed thereunder cannot said to be co-terminous with the power of colonisation department to fix or refix the reserve price at market rate of the Governmental land in dispute. (4) The fourth question is answered in affirmative holding that the statutory notification dated 23.11.1985 issued by the State Government for allotment of Government land in dispute to the petitioners would operate as promissory estoppel as the said notification contains representation made by the State Government intending that the petitioners would act upon its representation and factually the petitioners have acted upon the said representation and have altered their positions by depositing the reserve price fixed in the said notification and also by obtaining patta as well as possession of the disputed land. As a result of the aforementioned discussion the instant writ petitions are allowed and the notice issued to the petitioners demanding price at the market rate from them on the basis of departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 are hereby quashed and the departmental instructions/circular dated 19.10.1987 is hereby ignored as non-est. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on the other files of the connected writ petitions.