1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5239 OF 2008 (The Chief Executive Officer, Indian Railways vs. Shri Manohar Jeshiramji Thakare & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 5246 OF 2008 (The Chief Executive Officer vs. Smt. Rangubai Jeshiramji Thakare & Ors.) and WRIT PETITION NO. 5254 OF 2008 (The Chief Executive Officer, Indian Railways vs. Shri Damodhar Jeshiramji Thakare & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 5266 OF 2008 (The Chief Executive Officer, Indian Railways vs. Shri Pralhad Jeshiramji Thakare & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2010. Civil Application Nos. 2611/2009, 2612/2009 & 2613 of 2009 filed by Respondent No. 1 for directions in writ petitions (except in Writ Petition No. 5254 of 2008) are listed today for orders. However, perusal of record show that this Court has on 15.12.2008 issued notice for final disposal. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Patel and Shri Thakare, learned AGPs for respondents No. 2 & 3 state that the all the matters are also on board for final hearing. In view of this, I have heard the matters finally. Respondent No.1 in all the matters are the land owners who have filed applications under Section 2 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation amount awarded to them. In those proceedings they filed applications claiming interest under Section 34 of the Act pointing out that on amount awarded to them was not paid on the date of award i.e. 21.02.2000 and though possession was taken, actual payment is made on 05.05.2001. For intervening period, interest benefit has not been given by Land Acquisition Officer. The applications have been allowed by trial Court by a reasoned order after taking on record the reply filed by present petitioner in response thereto. Shri Lambat, learned counsel contends that by interlocutory order, final relief has been given to Respondent No.1 and order of such nature could not have been passed during the pendency of reference proceedings. He further states that the petitioner has already deposited necessary amount with Land Acquisition Officer and hence by issuing such directions the petitioner is required to make double payment. The learned AGPs dispute the statement of depositing the amount or entire amount with Respondent No.3 and are seeking time to verify this position. However, they support the arguments of Shri Lambat, learned counsel to the extent that the reference Court could not have given final relief at interlocutory stage. I find that reference proceedings are pending 3 since 2002. Respondent No.1 has not claimed interest under Section 34 of the Act, on enhanced amount of compensation sought for under Section 18 of the Act. He has pointed out that on amount granted as compensation by Land Acquisition Officer, the necessary interest in accordance with statutory scheme has not been released. The trial Court has found it correct and, therefore, issued that direction. Thus, the amount to which the respective Respondent No.1 was legally entitled and should have been paid to him as part of compensation has only been directed to be released to him by the impugned order. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. However, considering the facts that the petitioner is Central Government and grievance that amount is already deposited with Respondent No.3, respective Respondent No.1 are presently not permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in response to orders of this Court dated 04.08.2009. The said amount shall be invested in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year. The proceedings in Reference are expedited and Reference Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within one year from the date of communication of this order to it. In Writ Petition No. 5254 of 2008, the amount deposited in pursuance of orders of this Court is 4 already withdrawn by Respondent No.1 – land owner, hence, there is no question of its being depositing in any Nationalized Bank. Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.