IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Laxman Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6516/2005) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: July 10, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. R. P. Garg, for the petitioners. Mr. Dharmendra Agrawal, for respondent UIT Bharatpur. BY THE COURT: The petitioners have come to this Court seeking that interest should have been paid on the compensation amount as the amount, although due from 1994, was not paid till 7-3-2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners' father was khatedar of land of Chak No.2, Sector No.3 & 4, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur. The land was acquired by the State Government for the UIT Bharatpur, after issuing notices under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The awards were passed on 24-11-1993 and 17-1-1994 and the same were sanctioned and approved by State Government on 25-1-1994 and 23-6-1995. But despite the sanction of the awards by the State Government, the compensation amount was not paid to the petitioners. The petitioners, thus, preferred a writ petition before this Court, registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2108/1996. The writ petition was allowed on 2-6-2004 by this Court; the respondents were directed to release the award amount to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of the order. Thereafter the award amount was released through a cheque on 7-3-2005. During the pendency of the matter, the District Collector wrote a letter to UIT on 28-4-1997 mentioning therein that if the UIT failed to make payment of the award to claimants, the UIT has to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum as there is no stay of any court. Relying on the said letter, the petitioners served a notice on 27-5-2005 to respondents to make payment of the interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Thereafter the petitioners preferred the instant writ petition claiming the interest. On service, the respondents filed reply to the writ petition and contended that the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition is similar to the relief prayed in the writ petition No.2108/1996, which has been decided by this Court on 2-6-2004. Despite the relief sought, this Court has not passed any order with regard to interest to be paid on the award amount. Further, even after the order dated 2- 6-2004, the petitioners have not handed over the possession of the land. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any interest. 3. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the award was finally made on 26-3-1994, and since 1994 the compensation amount was not paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file writ petition No.2108/1996. The said writ petition was decided vide order dated 2- 6-2004 by this Court. This Court directed that the compensation amount should be paid to the petitioners, within one month from the date of the order. Despite the said directions, the compensation amount was not paid to the petitioners till 7-3-2005. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to an interest at the rate of 15% per annum till 7-3-2005. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the UIT, has contended that in the writ petition No.2108/1996 the petitioners had clearly prayed that interest should be paid on the compensation amount. However, while passing the order dated 2-6- 2004, this Court did not direct that interest should be paid on compensation amount. In fact, it merely directed that compensation amount should be paid. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioners for payment of the interest was rejected. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now claim that interest should be paid from 1994 till the date of actual payment. He has further contended that there is no reason as to why the interest should be paid even from 2-6-2004 till the date of actual payment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Both the parties are ad idem that in the writ petition the petitioners had prayed for the interest. However, while passing the order dated 2-6-2004, this Court had not issued any direction for payment of the interest to the petitioners. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioners about payment of interest is deemed to have been rejected. However, this Court had directed the UIT to make payment of the compensation amount within one month from the date of order i.e. upto 1-7-2004. Despite, the clear direction of this Court the compensation amount was not paid till 7-3-2005. Therefore, the petitioners are certainly entitled to payment of interest for the period from 1-7-2004 till 7-3-2005. 7. In this view of the matter, the respondent UIT is directed to make payment of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-7- 2004 till 7-3-2005. The amount of interest shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of this order. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is, hereby, allowed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn