MISS R. M. DOSHIT, J. Heard the learned Advocates.

2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the petition is heard and decided finally.

3. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the land owners. It is the claim of the petitioners that their lands at village Khambhada, Taluka-Dhandhuka, District-Ahmedabad were acquired in the year 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') for construction of Patana-Sarangpur road. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the State Government, the petitioners had applied for reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) decided the said reference on 30th December, 1985. The learned Extra-Assistant Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9/- per sq.mt., with 30% solatium and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 12% per annum for the remaining period till the amount of compensation was paid or deposited in the Court.

4. The learned Assistant Judge though had enhanced the amount of compensation and also ordered payment of interest @ 12% per annum, did not extend the benefit of interest at the rate of 15% as specified by Sec. 28 of the Act and of 12% increase as envisaged by Sec. 23(1A) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred above-referred first appeals for limited relief to claim interest @ 15% per annum and 12% increase as envisaged by Sec. 23(1A) of the Act.

5. This Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Kshitij R. Vyas, as he then was and Mr. Justice H. K. Rathod), by its judgment dated 21st October, 2002, was pleased to allow the appeals. The respondents were directed, "to pay to the appellants the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation awarded in favour of claimants including solatium for a period of one year from the date on which possession was taken, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum shall be paid from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid in the Court before the date of such expiry. The respondents are further directed to pay 12% increase on the market price to the appellants which had been awarded by the Reference Court from the date on which notification under Sec. 4 was published i.e., from 31st July, 1980 till the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., 9th November, 1982." The Court further directed, "to pay the entire amount, as aforesaid, to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this judgment."

6. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the aforesaid order was made as early as on 21st October, 2002, the difference in the amount of interest and increase has not been paid for nearly seven years.

7. It appears that since the notice of this writ petition, the respondent-Ahmedabad District Panchayat has paid up the amount of difference in interest and the amount of increase in the month of September, 2009.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. Amin has appeared for the petitioners. He admits the receipt of the amount of difference in interest and the amount of increase under Sec. 23(1A) of the Act. He has, however, submitted that though the aforesaid payment is made in the month of September, 2009, the interest @ 15% per annum has been paid for the period upto 31st August, 1988 and not thereafter. Mr. Amin has claimed that the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year from the date the possession was taken over till September, 2009 - the date when the payment was made. He has also submitted that the petitioners have not been paid solatium as envisaged by Sec. 23(2) of the Act over the amount of increase paid under Sec. 23(1A) of the Act.

9. In answer to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent-District Panchayat has appeared through learned Advocate Ms. Rawal and has contested the petition. Ms. Rawal has taken u