JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be non-granting of interest to the petitioners against the land belonging to them which were acquired from the date the possession was taken till the date the award has been passed.

2. The facts of the case are that, the land of the petitioners were acquired in the year, 2018, however, the petitioners were not paid interest on the said land and the amount of compensation quantified also was though deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer, but were not released to them. The petitioners 1 to 8 filed WPC Nos. 278/21, 288/21, 1472/21, 1489/21, 1486/21, 1481/21 1467/21 and 1475/21 which were disposed of on 27.01.21, 27.01.21, 16.03.21, 16.03.21, 16.03.21, 16.03.21, 12.03.21 & 16.03.21 respectively directing the respondents to release the payment of compensation already deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer and to decide the claim for interest from the date the possession was taken.

3. It is contended by the counsel for petitioners that pursuant to the disposal of earlier writ petitions, the respondents promptly released the compensation to the petitioners and thereafter on a representation they have been paid the interest also. However, the interest has been paid only from the date of award i.e. 22.11.2018 and not from the date of possession of the land. According to the petitioners, the possession was taken from the petitioners way back in the year, 2011 as has been pleaded in the writ petitions.

4. It is necessary at this juncture to reproduce the operative part of the order passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation, which reads as under:

"Considering the entire facts situation of the case and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event the petitioner moves a representation before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 claiming the interest for the period of passing of the award and its disbursal, within a period of 4 weeks from today, the said respondents shall consider and decide the representation at the earliest, preferably within a period of 4 months thereafter."

5. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the Supreme Court recently in case of Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) Through LR's Vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors. Civil Appeal (Diary No. 17566 of 2020), decided on 03.01.2022, has held as under:

"2. The limited issue involved in this appeal is about the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Court while issuing notice on 13.01.2021 noted thus:

"Counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court has glossed over the crucial fact that in the present case, urgency clause was invoked. In that event, in light of the exposition of this Court in R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. vs. D.D.A. & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79, the interest ought to be payable from the date of taking possession.

Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Liberty is granted to serve standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra."

6. In view of the aforesaid, the only issue which needs to be considered at this juncture is so far as the payment of interest payable to the petitioners from the date of possession till the date of award. As the subsequent interest part has already been taken care of as directed by this court in the earlier round of litigation upon representation being made. The respondents now have to decide only the entitlement of the petitioners for interest from the date of possession of land onwards, however, though subsequently payment of interest has been made, the same has been made only from the date of award.

7. Be that as it may, let the petitioners again approach the respondent No. 3 by way of a suitable representation within a period of 30 days seeking for interest from the date the actual posse