S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner in 1999 after his efforts at recovering the compensation for the acquisition by the respondents of land belonging to him failed. It is only through the intervention and orders of this Court that ultimately the amount determined to be payable by the award was paid to the petitioner. The award was dated 10. 9. 1997 and the final payment was made, after a number of hearings, only on 16. 2. 2005. As regards the payment of interest on the period of delay, this Court by the judgment dated 5. 5. 2005 gave liberty to the petitioner to raise this issue along with the issue concerning grant of enhanced compensation before the Civil Court. Further in the judgment dated 5. 5. 2005, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court issued the following directions:"in view of our above discussion we dispose of this writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues before the Court of competent jurisdiction. We further direct that the respondents shall pay costs of the present petition of Rs. 10,000/- as they have compelled the petitioner to come to this Court even for the payment of admitted amount which has been paid on different dates for no fault of the petitioner. We are of the considered opinion that the liability of costs should not be imposed ultimately upon an income tax payer and should not be permitted to be paid by the public Exchequer. The costs at the first instance would be paid by the respondents and then shall be recovered from the salary of the officers/officials responsible for this undue delay. The recovery shall be made in accordance with law and after granting them an opportunity within 3 months from the date the certified copy of this order is brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. The compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court within one week from the expiry of the stipulated period of 3 months. "

( 2 ) AT the hearing of the matter on 8. 5. 2006, this Court was informed that the compliance report in terms of the above directions had not yet been filed in the court. This Court accordingly directed that the concerned officers should remain present in the Court when the matter was listed next on 11. 5. 2006. Thereafter on 11. 5. 2006, a short adjournment was sought for filing an affidavit which ultimately appears to have been filed on 22. 5. 2006.

( 3 ) AS an explanation for the failure to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 5. 5. 2005, it has been stated in para 4 of the said affidavit dated 22. 5. 2006 as under:"without prejudice to the contentions made herein it is submitted that the certified copy of the order was received on 22. 8. 2005 along with the memo of the bills of the learned Government Counsel. It is submitted that the file was processed for payment of the bill and the copy of the judgment was sent in the said file. However, on receipt of the communication from the petitioner, the file was again processed for payments of cost to the petitioner vide note dated 22. 12. 2005. Since there was delay in processing the file, an explanation was called for. During this time it transpired that the relevant file is not traceable, the officials dealing with the files were either transferred or retired. This cause delay in processing the file. However, the file was again processed and after obtaining the approval of the Chief Secretary on 23. 3. 2006. It is submitted that by the time the file was received by the deponent, the financial year changed and fresh approval in view of the fresh budget was required and after obtaining the requisite approval from the concerned authorities, the payment was made to the petitioner and the recovery was affected from the said four officials and is being applied from the fifth. "

( 4 ) WE are now informed that the directions have now been complied with and therefore, nothing remains to be done in the matter. Although the di