\6 'Y^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HONBLESHRIR.N.CHANDRAKAFLJU Writ Aiweal No. 321 of2GflO Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for ftie State. Orat Judament (15tRSeptember,2010) PerDhirendra Mishra, J Briefly stated, grievance of the appellart: is ttiat his agricuttural (and bearing Khasra No. 334^, area 0.54 acres situated at ViHage Mulmuta, R.l. Cirde and Tahsil - Pamgarh, was acquired for construction of canal by the Water Resources Department of the State in ttie year 1984-85, wittKHrt pa^ng any compensation to the petitjoner. In these drcumstances, ttie appeltent- petitioner filed ttie writ petition seeking diredaon to the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation to him along wth interest Allowing the writ petition, learned Singte Judge directed the State Government to determine the compensation of ie land and make payment thereon to the petilaoner, in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act, 1894") after due verification and affwding an opportunity of hearing to the land owier. It has been furttier observed ttiat if the compensation is not determined as on the date of a^ujsitjon, in Appellant Petitioner Narendra Kumar Upadhyay, son of Shri Ram Khilawan Upadhyay, aged about 45 years, Occupatjon Cult»\^tpr,restelent of C/o Chhagan Lal Sharma, Near GsS^ani Schooi. Janjgir DistriGt Janj'gir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents ^7 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Seeretaiy, Water Resourees Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur (CG) ^7 Collector, Janjgtr-Champa, Chtroitttsgarh. ^7 District Land Acquisition OTicer, Jan^ir, Disfrict Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ~47 Land Acquisifion Officer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Janjgjr, ChhattisQarh. 57 Executive Engineer, Hascteo Bango Project, Water Resources Department. Janjgir, Chhattisgarh. ^7 Sub DivisionaJ Officer, Hasdeo Left Bank Canal, Water Management, Sub J3{viston No.7, Nariyara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ^ accordance wflft the provisions of ttie Act, 1894, the pelitioner shall b@ entftled to compensation wHh interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The responctents may alternatively consider determjnation of compensation in acoordanc®wth the provisipns of the Act, 1894 of ttie date friis petjtfon was fited, In that event, the petitioner shall be entiUed to compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum froni ttie date of frting of the writ petition till payment of compensation. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction Sssued by learned Singte Judge whereby respondents have been asked to pay interest from the dat@ of acquisition and restricting it to 9% per annum, v^ijch is contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1894. Havsng heard Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for fhe appellant, considering that the appetlant himself did not challenge the action of the respondents in acquiring his land without payment of compensation for nearly 24 years before any c^mpetent forum and the petition was filed after almost 23 years in June, 2008, vw dectine to interfere in the order pa^ed l^ the tearned Single Judge in favour of ttie petitioner. There is no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and js, accordingfy, dismissed at the admission stege iteeff. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^