High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Division Bench; judgment per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.; Vibha Kankanwadi, J.), pronounced 17.02.2026 — Eighteen writ petitions by agriculturists/landowners whose lands stand acquired for State Highway (Special) No. 2A, the 8-lane Jalna–Nanded Super Expressway (intended extension of the Nagpur–Mumbai Samruddhi Highway) under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, DISMISSED. Petitioners challenged the Collector, Parbhani's communication dated 10.01.2025 (emanating from the Hon'ble Chief Minister's review meeting of 09.01.2025) and the award dated 29.09.2025, contending that (a) the Land Acquisition Officer's determination of compensation (orders of 02/03.09.2024) approved by the District Level Committee on 04.10.2024 and accepted by landowners (letter dated 07.01.2025) had attained finality and bound the State by consent/promissory estoppel; (b) the second valuation report dated 23.05.2023 (Google Earth/KML-based) was prepared behind their back and the DLC meeting of 09.06.2023 proceeded without the hearing mandated by S.19B(6)/(7); and (c) the 29.09.2025 award was an impermissible 'second award'. HELD: (i) the Government Resolutions of 12.05.2015 and 29.05.2018 create only administrative architecture for agreement-based acquisition with a 25% incentive; the District Level Committee operates in a Government-Resolution domain, is not a statutory adjudicatory authority, and its minutes/internal approvals confer no enforceable right; (ii) the second valuation report episode was, at worst, a curable procedural irregularity at an intermediate stage, substantially cured by subsequent hearings before the Land Acquisition Officer — not a jurisdictional nullity; (iii) no finality attaches short of a statutory determination/award recognisable under S.19B, and promissory estoppel cannot compel the State to act contrary to statute or freeze the process at a non-statutory stage; (iv) the Collector's communication is not ipso facto unlawful interference absent demonstration that the Land Acquisition Officer acted mechanically or under dictation — not established on the record; (v) the authority is not functus officio where the process has not culminated in a legally finalized determination, and re-determination before final crystallisation is not a prohibited 'review'/'second award'; (vi) disputes as to valuation choice, adequacy, methodology and timing fall within the arbitral forum under S.19B(8)-(10); Article 226 jurisdiction to be exercised with restraint, confined to legality, jurisdiction and procedural fairness; (vii) nomenclature of the 29.09.2025 document ('award' vs 'determination') is immaterial. Post-judgment: request to continue the interim relief (order dt. 15.10.2025 restraining further proceedings towards possession) rejected; authorities to strictly comply with the Act/Rules (including S.19P) when taking physical possession; quantum/methodology left open for statutory remedies. No order as to costs.
