In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.1928 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.5.2008 Jagir Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.1928, 1962 and 2071 of 2008. The short issue raised in these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest as envisaged by Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). When the matter came up for consideration on 21.4.2008, we have passed a detailed order which reads as under:- “On the basis of written statement filed, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that CWP No.1928 of 2008 -2- although the respondents have paid compensation, solatium and 12% in addition to the market value of the acquired land but no interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been paid which has to be added from the date of possession till the date of announcement of the award or deposit of the amount in the Reference Court. The aforementioned position has been clarified by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 457 and Rakesh Kumar Jain and another. v. State of U.P. (2007) 2SCC 461. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 has held in para 14 as under:- “Question of payment of interest would arise only when the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It is inequitable that the person who is deprived of the possession of the land on account of acquisition proceedings is not given the amount which law demands to be paid to him; any delay thereafter would only be to his detriment. There must be a provision to buffet such iniquity. It is for the purpose of affording CWP No.1928 of 2008 -3- relief to the person who is entitled to such compensation when the payment of his money is delayed that the provision is made under Section 34 of the Act” . Faced with the aforementioned situation, learned State counsel has requested for a short adjournment and to ensure payment of all dues to the claimants.” Learned State counsel, on the basis of instructions received from Ravinder Singh, Senior Assistant, office of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Sector, 17, Chandigarh, has stated that the payment of interest in terms of order dated 21.4.2008 has now been made on 15.5.2008. In view of above, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 19, 2008 JUDGE anita