1. The short question which arises for our consideration in the present case relates to whether a party to a contract is entitled to question the amount of consideration after signing the contract. By adverting to the facts of the case, we have held that Respondent No.1 is estopped from doing so because the Appellant, in all its communications, had sought for an amount of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges i.e., consideration for diversion of water for industrial use, which was earlier reserved for irrigational purposes. Even the contract entered into between the parties prescribed the same amount. In fact, Respondent No.1 agreed to the pay the consideration by issuing an undertaking on the date of signing of the contract.

17. In the present case, the Appellant and Respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement on 22.05.2012. This agreement categorically stated that Respondent No.1 would pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare towards irrigation restoration charge. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 is not justified in challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 when it itself had agreed to the same. In fact, on the same day, Respondent No.1 had also issued an undertaking that it would pay the stipulated sum within a specific period of time. We may note here that right from the very beginning i.e., in the sanction order, the demand notice and in all its letters, the Appellant had stipulated a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare as irrigation restoration charges. All these communications get subsumed in the agreement dated 22.05.2012. Therefore, we are of the view that signing the agreement and issuing an undertaking would estop Respondent No.1 from challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges.

18. We are not impressed with the argument of Shri Gopal Jain that it is the rate prevailing on the date of grant of in-principle approval which would govern Respondent No.1. The rights and liabilities of the parties stand crystallized on the date of entering into the agreement, which is 22.05.2012. Therefore, the rate prevailing on 22.05.2012 would govern the parties.

22. In conclusion, we allow the Civil Appeal No. 8550 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 28161 of 2016 and set aside the impugned final judgement and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur in W.P. No. 4968 of 2015.