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. 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 Acquisition Act of 2013, an aggrieved person whose land has been acquired has the scope of praying for a reference for enhancement of the Award, in the present scheme, there is no such scope. On the other hand, the petitioners were also required to sign on dotted lines to give an undertaking that they would not pray for an enhanced rate later. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State Authorities were bound by promissory estoppel which also has the colour of a statute as it is under a duly notified scheme which was also notified in the Official Gazette. He has however informed this Court that though “Form B” was required to be filled up for all the 6 nos. He has however informed this Court that though “Form B” was required to be filled up for all the 6 nos. of petitioners, such “Form B” are not available for all the petitioners but it is not in dispute that the agreements were duly entered into whereby a particular rate of land as price was agreed upon. He has submitted that absence of “Form B” will not make any difference to the claim of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the purported justification for the impugned action is reduction in the zonal value of the land which has been notified on 25.08.2023. He has submitted that the negotiations and agreements were held prior to such reduction in the zonal value. He has otherwise submitted that even a reduction in the zonal value will not have any impact on the price arrived at by a negotiated settlement with a duly constituted committee. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court in another writ petition in which this Court had directed payment in terms of the negotiated agreement. In this connection, he has referred to the said decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1548 [ Pankaj Mohan Yein and Ors. Vs. State of Assam represented by Commissioner and Secretary ] . He has also referred and relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 and the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 on promissory estoppel are pressed into service which read as follows: “8. He has also referred and relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 and the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 on promissory estoppel are pressed into service which read as follows: “8. … The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect 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, the 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, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not.” 9. Coming to the pleaded case of the petitioners in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it has been specifically pleaded that three of the petitioners were not given copies of the agreement which they had actually signed and such pleadings are made in paragraphs 9, 11 and 19. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 11.04.2025 wherein there is no dispute or denial to the aforesaid averments. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the reply made to the averments made in paragraph 45 of the writ petition where no comments have been offered. He has submitted that the only justification appears to be based on the notification dated 25.08.2023 which will not be sustainable in law. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and a direction be issued for payment of the negotiated price in terms of the agreements arrived at between the petitioners and the State. 11. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and a direction be issued for payment of the negotiated price in terms of the agreements arrived at between the petitioners and the State. 11. Per contra, Shri B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has submitted that much before the notification dated 25.08.2023 whereby the zonal valuation was reduced, the process has started vide a notification dated 14.06.2022 which was in vogue while the agreements were entered into. He has submitted that in view of the said position, the rates arrived at in the agreement are not in accordance with law and therefore, there is justification for reducing the rate. He has also referred to a letter dated 16.11.2023 wherein the petitioners had contended of not being aware of the negotiated amount. 12. Opposing the writ petition, Shri P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD has also referred to the notification dated 25.08.2023 whereby the zonal valuation of the land in question was reduced. He has submitted that the negotiations do not disclose what guidelines were followed for arriving at the rate. He has also submitted that no negotiations were made with the PWD and since public money is involved, the impugned decision is justified which does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that while the petitioners have relied upon a scheme dated 20.01.2021, the same has been superseded by another notification dated 07.03.2022 and therefore, the grounds of challenge are erroneously founded. 13. In his rejoinder, Shri Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though, as a matter of fact, a subsequent notification dated 07.03.2022 on the scheme has been published, the same is substantially similar to the earlier notification dated 20.01.2021 and the same would therefore not make any difference to the claim of the petitioners. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the agreements, more specifically the one with the petitioner no. 1 which would show that PWD is also a part of the agreement. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 4.2 of the scheme as per which, the Committee in question constitutes of, amongst others, officials of the Public Works Department. 1 which would show that PWD is also a part of the agreement. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 4.2 of the scheme as per which, the Committee in question constitutes of, amongst others, officials of the Public Works Department. He has submitted that in a process of this nature, the zonal valuation will not have an impact as this is not an acquisition proceeding and only a negotiated settlement. 14. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 15. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners were taken as per a scheme, namely, “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”. This scheme has been notified in the Gazette on 20.01.2021. At this stage, this Court would also like to deal with the submission made on behalf of the Public Works Department that this scheme has been superseded by another notification dated 07.03.2022. This Court has however, on a comparison found that there is no substantial change in the two schemes and therefore publication of the notification dated 07.03.2022 would not have any material bearing on the inter se merits of the rival parties. 16. The scheme in question contemplates of a District Level Land Purchase Committee which has been defined in clause 4.2 and the requirement of preparation of the valuation of the land and assets by the said Committee has been stated in paragraph 4.7. As indicated above, Clause 4.9 is with regard to the requirement of having the price 25% higher and as per clause 4.11, pre- informed negotiations with the respective landowners are to be carried out. Clause 4.12 is with regard to the requirement of recording such agreement. For ready reference, the relevant clauses are extracted hereinbelow: “4. Government of Assam has adopted 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. The important steps and features of Purchase include the following: 4.1. Step 1: … 4.2. For ready reference, the relevant clauses are extracted hereinbelow: “4. Government of Assam has adopted 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. The important steps and features of Purchase include the following: 4.1. Step 1: … 4.2. Step 2: A District level Land Purchase Committee (DLLPC) under chairmanship of DC is to be constituted for direct purchase of land as well as fixation of market valu DLLPC will be constituted of the following concerned persons: - Deputy Commissioner/District Collector-Chairman - Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) - Member Secretary - Executive Engineer, PWRD-Member · Executive Engineer, Building, PW (Bldg & NH) Deptt. –Member - Revenue Circe Officer Member · Sub-Registrar – Member - Representatives from other departments, as decided by the Convener … 4.7. Step 7. DLLPC will prepare the valuation of land and assets. The requisitioning agency may also define a few typical immovable assets of different categories and fix the guidance price through appropriate authority. This price of the assets attached to the land may be calculated on pro rata basis on typical immovable assets mentioned above. … 4.9. Step 9: The Direct Purchase Price shall be 25% higher on the compensation calculated as per provisions of Section 26 to 30 & Schedule I of RFCTLARR Act 2013 with multiplier of market rate of land defined through the Assam Land Acquisition Notification No. RLA 300/2013/Pt-11/7 dated 22nd December, 2014 (in compliance with Section 26 (2) and Serial 2 of First Schedule of RFCTLARR Act 2013). The R&R benefit will be deemed included in it. … 4.11 Step 11: Pre-Informed negotiation(s) with the respective Land Owners will be carried out by DLLPC. 4.12. Step 12: The settlement reached in the negotiation shall be recorded as Agreement through Form-B and Form-C for land owners and for interested persons other than land owners, if any, respectively. An undertaking may be signed by the land owners declaring that they will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any court of law or any other forum and shall abide by the sale agreement finalized by the DLLPC. The land owners and other interested persons have to provide their electronic transfer details through electronic transfer mode. …” 17. An undertaking may be signed by the land owners declaring that they will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any court of law or any other forum and shall abide by the sale agreement finalized by the DLLPC. The land owners and other interested persons have to provide their electronic transfer details through electronic transfer mode. …” 17. It is not in dispute that the lands of the petitioners were taken by the Government for the Asom Mala Project in terms of the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly informed this Court that so far as 3 nos. of petitioners are concerned, the agreement copies were not given to them which however were duly signed. In this connection, the averments made in the writ petition in paragraphs 9, 11 and 19 are extracted hereinbelow: “9. That after negotiations a settlement was arrived that the land of the petitioner no.1 would be acquired at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per Bigha. Accordingly, a total of 21 numbers of Agreements (as per Form-B to the Notification dated 20/01/2021) were executed with the petitioner no.1 by the Requisitioning Agency on 08/06/2022 and a total consideration of 01/09/2022 recording Rs.3,17,55,650/- as compensation in lieu of a total of 18 Bighas 5 Kathas 14 Lechas of the acquired land(s) situated at No.2 Senchowa Gaon (Dhudar Ali) Dhekial Mouza covered by Dag Nos. 328/405/483 and Gorunga Grant (Dhudar Ali), under Dhekial Mouza covered by Dag Nos. 9/10/11/14/49/50/69/74/75/76/79/80/81/82/83/84/85/86 in the District of Golaghat. It be stated herein that certified copies of the Agreements executed between the parties after being signed by the concerned respondent authorities were never furnished to the petitioner no.1 and as such, the respondent authorities may be directed to furnish the same before this Hon'ble Court. 11. That the petitioner no.1 thereafter awaited the response from the concerned officials of the respondent and in the meantime vide another application dated 03/07/2023 prayed for release of the compensation in favour of Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. A/C Gorunga Tea Estate (i.e., the petitioner no.1). As was mandated under the notification, the petitioner no.1 was asked to submit an undertaking and an indemnity bond. It be stated herein that as per the instructions of the concerned respondent authorities the petitioner no.1 had signed the indemnity bond without mentioning the amount. … 19. Ltd. A/C Gorunga Tea Estate (i.e., the petitioner no.1). As was mandated under the notification, the petitioner no.1 was asked to submit an undertaking and an indemnity bond. It be stated herein that as per the instructions of the concerned respondent authorities the petitioner no.1 had signed the indemnity bond without mentioning the amount. … 19. That similarly negotiations were also entered into with the petitioner no.2 and compensation was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- per Bigha. The petitioner no.2 upon agreeing to the said price had executed a total of 5 numbers of Agreements (as per Form-B to the Notification dated 20/01/2021) with the Requisitioning Agency recording a total consideration of Rs.3,75,36,675/- as compensation in lieu of a total of 17 Bighas 4 Lechas of the acquired land(s) situated at Village - Pohusuwa (Kamar Bandha Ali), Village Mohimabari Habi (Kamar Bandha Ali) and Village - Upar Khatwal (Kamar Bandha Ali) under Mouza Kakodunga covered by Dag Nos. 774/P, 775/P, 776/P, 812/P, 813 / P 767/P, 768/P, 769/P, 771/P, 832/P, 835/P, 828/P, 1256/P, 1262/P, 1264/P, 1265/P, 1267 / P 1/P, 4 / P 5 /P prime 14 / P 17 /P prime 23 / P 29 / P 31/P and 40/P in the District of Golaghat. It be stated herein that certified copies of the Agreements executed between the parties after being signed by the concerned respondent authorities were never furnished to the petitioner no.2 and as such, the respondent authorities may be directed to furnish the same before this Hon'ble Court.” 18. This Court has noted that the said averments have not been disputed or denied in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents nos. 3 and 4 on 11.04.2025 and in this regard, the relevant paragraph 9 may be referred which reads as follows: “9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the instant writ petition are the matter of records, the deponent has no comments to offer. The further states that the deponent does not admit anything which are not borne out of records. As regards the justification, the averments in the counter affidavit have been made in paragraph 10 which are extracted hereinbelow: 10. 10, 11 & 12 of the instant writ petition are the matter of records, the deponent has no comments to offer. The further states that the deponent does not admit anything which are not borne out of records. As regards the justification, the averments in the counter affidavit have been made in paragraph 10 which are extracted hereinbelow: 10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no.13 of the instant writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the zonal rate of Tea Garden land is taken under consideration for making payment of compensation as per Project Director, ARNIP & ASRIP PWRD, Guwahati vide letter No.E-313375/17 dated 07/07/2023 for said Assam Mala Project. 19. There is no dispute to the aforesaid factual position that the lands were taken pursuant to negotiated agreement wherein a particular price was agreed upon. It is also not the case of the respondent authorities that while agreeing upon such price, there has been any malpractice or corrupt practice or that an exorbitant price has been agreed upon. The only justification which appears is a reduction in the zonal value of the land which has been notified on 25.08.2023. This Court is of the opinion that such reduction of zonal valuation is of a subsequent period when the agreements were already signed and would not have a bearing on the agreements. This Court is also of the opinion that even a reduction in the zonal valuation, if made during the contemporaneous period, would not have a major impact inasmuch as, such a rate would be relevant only in case of an acquisition proceeding whereas in the present case, such land was taken on the basis of a negotiated direct purchase. This Court is of the view that such price are agreed upon in a negotiation which cannot be altered subsequently. In fact, this Court has been shown the pleadings as per which the petitioners were required to give an undertaking that they would not ask for a higher price after the negotiations. 20. Juxtaposed under the Land Acquisition Act of 2013, an aggrieved party has the scope of praying for a reference under Section 64 if he is aggrieved by the sufficiency of the acquisition award or any other grievance. The aspect of solatium, interest and zirat compensation are also matters which can be raised in a case of acquisition. 21. 20. Juxtaposed under the Land Acquisition Act of 2013, an aggrieved party has the scope of praying for a reference under Section 64 if he is aggrieved by the sufficiency of the acquisition award or any other grievance. The aspect of solatium, interest and zirat compensation are also matters which can be raised in a case of acquisition. 21. In the case of Pankaj Mohan Yein (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar matter has made the following observations: “32. Another aspect of the matter is that once the authorities have agreed on the price and the award has been passed, there shall be no scope to recall such award either under the notification dated 20.01.2021 or under section 64(a)(1) of the Act, 2013 and Rules 2015. 33. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their negotiated price for the acquisition of land through direct purchase.” 22. In the case of Motilal Padampat (supra), the aspect of promissory estoppel has been elaborately explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondent authorities would be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel whereby a negotiated agreement was arrived and a price was agreed upon. The said price was arrived at by negotiating with the petitioners by a duly constituted committee which consists of not only the District Administration but also the officers of the Public Works Department, Revenue Department and other organs of the Government. This Court is unable to accept the proposition advanced on behalf of the State that the process of reduction of the zonal price of the land had started on 14.06.2022 though as a matter of fact the notification dated 25.08.2023 has referred to such process. It has been clearly stated that the same would come into operation only from 01.09.2023 by which time the agreements were already arrived at. As mentioned above, there is no allegation of corrupt practice or mala fide. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for interference is made out. As mentioned above, there is no allegation of corrupt practice or mala fide. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for interference is made out. It is accordingly directed that the price arrived at with the respective petitioners in the negotiated settlement held pursuant to the scheme of land acquisition be paid to them in full within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 24. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated above. 25. No order as to cost.