IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2957 of 1995 1. AWADH KISHORE PANDEY 2. Raj Kishore Pandey 3. Kaushal Kishore Pandey all sons of late Shyamal Kishore Pandey 4. Most. Banmala Devi, wife of Late Nawal Kishore Pandey 5. Chandra Lekha Devi @ Pandey, daughter of Late Nawal Kishore Pandey, all residents of village Bath, P.S. Bath, District Bhagalpur … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Collector, Bhagalpur 3. Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagalpur 4. Secretary, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Director, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. Director, Silk and Handloom, Bihar, Patna, New Secretatriat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 6. 13.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The prayer in this writ application on behalf of the petitioners is only for issuance of a direction to prepare a final award in terms of the order of this Court dated 8.2.1993 in C.W.J.C.No. 10614/92 and another order dated 14.2.1994 in C.W.J.C.No. 7955/93. Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the case of the petitioners stands exactly on identical footing as that of the writ petitioner of 2 C.W.J.C.No. 10614/92 and C.W.J.C.No. 7955/93, inasmuch as their land was acquired under the emergency provision and possession was taken u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1.4.1980 only upon making payment of a fractional sum in the year 1985 by way of an adhoc payment. The case of the petitioners is that as no payment was made to any of the land holder, the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C.No. 10614/92 had moved this Court for a direction for payment of their final compensation and this Court had issued a direction to the respondents to prepare an award within a period of six months in which the interest was directed to be paid at the rate of 18% from the date of taking over possession i.e. 21.4.1980 to the date of their being dispossessed. Mr. Pandey would submit that these facts are absolutely identical and therefore, when the petitioners also have been waiting for last 14 years they should be given the same relief. At this stage Mr. Sourendra Pandey appearing on behalf of the interveners would submit that they also belong to the same 3 family and for them there cannot be two standards or parameters for calculation of the award including the amount of interest and if this Court has given 18% to the writ petitioners of the aforementioned two writ applications, all that they would like to have, their award also be modified/ corrected by making them entitled for payment of interest on the same rate. Counsel for the State would not be in a position to controvert any of these facts but then he would take a plea that the order of this Court was confined to the petitioners of those writ petitions and cannot be made applicable in each and every case. Upon hearing the parties this Court is satisfied that a direction should be issued also for payment of interest at the rate of 18% in view of the fact that the sprit of the Act introducing section 28A which requires redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. Strictly speaking the said provision cannot be applicable as it would be required only to the award of the court 4 but then if the order of this Court had the capacity of amending the award by enhancing the interest from 12% to 18% and similarly situated land holders have been paid such amount, the same cannot be denied to the petitioners. Their cases in fact stand on identical footing on all four and accordingly, this Court would direct the Collector of Bhagalpur district to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in terms of the order of this Court dated 8.2.1993 in C.W.J.C.No. 10614/92 and the other order dated 14.2.1994 in C.W.J.C.No. 7955/93. Such order would be made applicable in case of all the land holders because their cases stand on identical footing, inasmuch as all of them stood deprived of receiving award from the year 1980 despite possession of their land has been taken away and therefore, whatever benefit has been given under the orders of this Court in the case of Bhanu Prakash Pandey has to be extended to other land holders as well including the petitioners. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would, therefore, give liberty to 5 the petitioners and the interveners to approach the Collector with this order and the Collector would do the needful within a period of six months. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/