IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12595 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Mahboob Azim son of Late Iftikhar Ahmad 2. Most. Nando Devi W/O Late Baikunth Gope Both Resident of Vill. Shekhpura P.S. Pandark, Distt. Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Union Of India Through Secretary Energy 3. The Secretary, Directorate Of Land Acquisition Patna 4. The Collector, Patna Distt. Patna 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 6. The Chief General Manager, East Zone N.T.P.C. Patna 7. The General Manager N.T.P.C. Barh .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Nilima Sinha, Meenu and Rajeev Ranjan, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ajeet Kumar, AC to A.G. ====================================================== 8 21-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit specially in paragraph nos. 9 and 13 that 100 % award amount is going to be revised as per the new price of the land, the petitioner does not have any grievance to that effect. At the time of hearing of this case the petitioners also do not raise the point of controversy with regard to the date from which the additional amount as per Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is to be calculated as the Section 4 of the Act itself is clear that 2 relevant date would either be the last date of such publication or the date of giving of the such public notice. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interest should be calculated at the rate provided in the statute and the solatium should be given to the petitioner @ 60 % as the claim of the petitioners is that they have willingly given the lands for the said purpose. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed before the authority concerned in the year 2011. In above view of the matter, let the petitioners file a proper application in this regard along with a certified copy of the order before the respondent no. 4 raising the above issues before him within four weeks. In such case, let the respondent no. 4 consider the same and take a decision recording a reasoned order in accordance with the statute as well as Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 as amended till date with regard to amount of interest as well as amount of solatium, within 12 weeks thereafter. The decision taken should be communicated to the petitioners. This writ application stands disposed of in the terms indicated above. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) 3