1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“For quashing the memo no. 766 dt. 03.10.2013 issued by the Respondent No. 4 by which the Respondent No. 4 has illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest on the amount of compensation in accordance with the provision contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act which has been illegally withheld by the respondents without any rhyme and reason what so ever and the respondents be directed to make payment @ 15% on the amount of compensation with respect to the acquired lands belonging to the petitioners in accordance with the provision contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.”

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land involved in this case was acquired by Notification published on 18.08.1992 and the award was prepared on 17.08.1993, but immediately after passing of the award, the objection was raised by third party regarding the entitlement of the petitioners in connection with the awarded amount and accordingly the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and Reference Case No. 01/2001 was instituted which was ultimately decided on 07.07.2011 and the claim of the 3rd party was ultimately rejected. Thereafter the petitioners became entitled to receive the amount of the award.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier they have filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3750 of 2013 for the payment of interest under Section 34 @ 15% as the amount of award which was given to the petitioners was the awarded amount plus 9% interest for one year. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to payment under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act.

6. This court vide order dated 08.07.2013 disposed of the matter directing the respondent no. 4 of the said case to consider the case of the petitioners and take a decision. Thereafter the petitioners filed their representation and the claim of the petitioners was rejected vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 766 dated 3.10.2013.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only reason which has been assigned in the impugned order for non payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is that the delay in payment of award was not attributable to the State that there was a dispute in connection with the entitlement of the petitioners and the petitioners ought to have pointed out the objection at the appropriate time. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were never the objector. The objector was the 3rd party. The petitioners have no concern as to how and when the objector has filed objection. He further submits that as the possession of the property was taken by the respondents under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitioners are entitled for the interest and the same is only a matter of calculation. Neither the Act nor any provision of law contemplates any further deliberation so far as entitlement of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned.

8. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that from perusal of the impugned memo no. 766 dated 03.10.2013 it appears from the same that there is no deliberation on the applicability to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 although the impugned order has been passed by the land acquisition officer pursuant to the direction passed in the earlier writ petition. He further submits that in the award passed in L.A. Reference Case No. 01/2001, there is no indication regarding payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.

9. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record this court finds that admittedly the land was acquired on 18.08.1992 an