WP(C) 4649/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. N.KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R.Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the res pondents. This is the second round of litigation as far as the petitioner is concerned regarding the rights claimed by him. In the earlier writ petition f iled by the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 3023 of 1995, the petitioner had c laimed for payment of compensation in respect of the land belonging to him which was taken over by the State of Assam, PWD in 1991. In the said writ petition, t he petitioner had sought for making adequate compensation as well as for providi ng an alternative plot of land for residential purposes. The aforesaid writ peti tion was disposed of by this Court on 11.11.97 by which it was directed as follo ws:- 2. In view of the aforesaid factual position which has so averred and which has not been controverted by affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, this court has no other option but to allow the writ petition. The respondents No.1 and 3 are directed to disburse the amount of compensation of Rs.57,000/- along w ith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of acquisition of the l and of the petitioner vide Annexure-2A to the writ petition till actual payment. At the same time respondent No.3 is further directed to make an enquiry regardi ng the allotment of alternative land where the petitioner can construct the hous e. It has already been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment that the auth orities appear to be seized of the matter as is evident from Anenxure-6 to the w rit petition and therefore it is directed that the enquiry be completed by resp ondent No.3 within a period of two(2) months from the date of production of the copy of the order/judgment of this court. If for certain reasons the petitioner is not found to be entitled to the alternative allotment, respondent No.3 would pass a speaking and well reasoned order which the petitioner would be entitled t o challenge before this court again. Since the petitioner was compelled to knock the door of this court on account of inaction on the part of the respondents th e present is a fit case in which the respondents No.1 to 6 should be burdened w ith exemplary costs. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost of Rs.5, 000/- to be paid by respondents No.1 to 6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The amount of Rs.57,000/- along with interest as has been ordered in earlier part of the judgment be paid positively within two months. Two contentions has been raised in this writ petition by the pre sent writ petitioner. Firstly, in respect of the interest which was directed to be paid by the Court as per order dated 11.11.97, the petitioner contends that it has to be from the date of acquisition of the land of the petitioner. The pet itioner has been paid only w.e.f. 23.6.94, which according to the petitioner, sh ould be from 27.3.1991 which is the date of acquisition of the land. Accordingly , he prays that a direction may be issued to the respondents . In this regard, t he respondents are directed to re-examine the matter and settle the compensation as directed by this court on earlier occasion with effect from the date of acqu isition of the land. As regard the second plea, it is the contention of the writ peti tioner that the Government indeed, on the basis of the aforesaid judgment and or der dated 11.11.97 had processed for giving an alternative land for the residen tial purpose in favour of the petitioner, by drawing attention to Annexure-5 an d 5(a). However, without affording an alternative arrangement, the authorities h ave instead given the aforesaid land earmarked for the petitioner to the PHE Dep artment, thereby depriving the petitioner of his original claim of an alternativ e plot of land for domestic purposes. In this regard, this court is not incline d to pass any further order except to reiterate what had already been ordered o n 11.11.97 and directing that the authorities are duty bound to comply with the directions issued on 11.11.97 regarding the provision of alternative land in fav our of the petitioner which is clearly stated in Para No.2 of the judgment and o rder as quoted above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to comply with the directions of this court passed on 11.11.97 in Civil Rule No.3023 of 1995 ke eping into consideration the process which they had already undertaken as stated above. The aforesaid exercise regarding the provision for alternative l and may be completed at the earliest, preferably within period of four months. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands closed. No order as to costs.