3. Learned ccunsel for the petitioner argued that though the [and of the petitioner has been taken and used for construction of W.B.M. Road on the assurance that proper compensation would be paid to him, even though, decisions have been taken by the respondent-Municipaiity from time to time to provide appropriate compensation, till date, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner, despite several representations having been made. it is submitted that the respondent-Municipality, having taken the property of the petitioner, ought to have paid him appropriate compensation within a reasonabie time, but , the same has not been paid, and therefore, the respondent-Municipaiity be directed to make payment of compensation to the petitioner along with proper interest. > 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who is the Chief Municipal Officer of Respondent No.1, submits that though the compensation is to be paid to the petitioner, for want of necessary fund with the iocal body, the same could not be paid. Referring to the averments made in the reply, it is further submitted that the respondent-Municipality has made efforts to collect necessary fund from the State Government, but till the date of tiling of return, no funds have been made availabie, as a result of which, the necessary amount of compensation could not be paid. lt is further submitted that the respondent r agreed to pay amount of compensation as and when sanction and allotment is received from the State Government. He further draws attention of this Court to the averment made in the return that the Collector, Janjgir-Champa vide his letter dated 27-01-2007 has already written to the State Government for sanction of amount of compensation for being paid to the petitioner and the matter is still pending. ' 5. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the x documents which are placed on record, it is quite clear that the land of the i petitioner was used for construction of road and the respondent-Municipa!ity resolved to pay compensation to the petitioner. The comments of the S.D.O,(Revenue) were also obtained for the purposes of computation of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. From the correspondences which have been made between the respondent-Municipality and other offices i.e. office of the Deputy Director, Urban Administration, the Coilector and many other offices. it is clear that though the respondent-Municipality does not dispute its liabiiity for payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioner, for want of ,ufncient fund. tiil date, the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. In the repiy of the respondent No.2 atso. liability to pay compensation has not been denied, but it has been stated that as the funds have not been received by the State Government, the payments could not be made. From ietter dated 01-09-2008(Annexure P-19) of Directorate. Urban Administration and Deveiopment, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, it is revealed that the respondent- Municipaiity was directed to make payment of compensation to the petitioner from its own funds or to send proposai of loans and dispose off the claim of the petitioner. 6. Under these circumstances, it is borne out that for one reason or the other, the respondent-Municipality is not making payment of compensation to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, it would be proper to direct the respondents to make payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioner as assessed by the respondent- Municipality within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9%. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off. 7 Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge W R \‘ t s