IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1835 of 2007 MD. NAIM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 08/ 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of order passed by this court on 15.12.2006 by which C.W.J.C. No.7292 of 2004 was disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law and decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today as the matter is pending since long. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that five persons of the same family, namely Akhtar Ansari, his second wife Bibi Marjina and their sons Anwar, Tabarak and Akbar had died in communal riot at Bhagalpur in the year 1989. It is also stated by learned counsel for the opposite parties that Bibi Marjina had one son from her first husband Yunus, three sons from her second husband Akhtar Ansari and hence compensation with regard to Bibi Marjina has been decided to be given to petitioner Naim, as the other three sons of Bibi Marjina had already died. 4. He further stated that Akhtar Ansari had one son and two daughters from his first wife Bibi Amina, namely Afsar, Saira and Tabassum, respectively and hence after the death of Anwar, 2 Tabarak and Akbar the compensation with regard to them will go to their two half brothers and two half sisters, namely Naim (petitioner), Afsar, Saira and Tabassum in equal share as the father and mother of the deceased had already died. 5. It is further stated that the respondents are ready and willing to pay the compensation with regard to the said Bibi Marjina, Anwar, Tabarak and Akbar as per the aforesaid calculation according to which payment chart (annexure E) had already been prepared on 13.08.2008 which was also signed by the petitioner and the cheque for the said amount is ready from before for payment (annexure H series) to the petitioner and others separately. 6. From the above mentioned facts of the case it appears that the said distribution as per the payment chart (annexure E) is in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner after considering the provisions of law accepts the same, but claims that interest must be paid on the said amount. 7. Considering the said circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of directing the authorities to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner, but for that the petitioner must approach the authorities concerned within two weeks in terms of the document produced by the opposite parties as annexure-E series at page 25 dated 13.08.2008. However, the petitioner cannot be legally entitled to any interest on the said amounts. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )