By the Court.—

Re-Delay Condonation Application

Heard learned counsel for the parties. No counter-affidavit has been filed to the affidavit filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay.

2. We are satisfied with the explanation given in the affidavit for condoning the delay and accordingly this application is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

Re-Review Petition

3. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi alongwith Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4 and have perused the record.

4. The land of the petitioners was acquired by notifications issued in the year 2003 and the possession of the land was taken from the petitioners on 22nd August, 2003. By means of an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents which was under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,26,78,650/- was made to the petitioners on 16.10.2004. Then, after a gap of nearly six years, on 12.7.2010 the petitioners moved a representation for payment of interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment. In December, 2010 the petitioners filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% interest for the subsequent years for the delayed in payment of compensation to the Petitioners.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to decide the Representation dated 12.7.2010 of the Petitioners within a stipulated period.

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20.12.2010, the review of which has been sought by this review petition. For ready reference, the order dated 20.12.2010 is reproduced below:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent No. 4-NOIDA and have perused the record.

The case of the petitioners is that their land was acquired by the respondent-NOIDA. It is contended that though they have been paid compensation but the interest for the delayed payment has not been paid to the petitioners. Alongwith this writ petition, the petitioners have not filed any award under which they have been paid compensation.

Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 states that the payment of compensation has been made to the petitioners on the basis of an agreement entered into between the State and the petitioners.

The petitioners do not deny this fact but surprisingly no copy of the agreement has been filed alongwith this petition. In the absence of the same, the prayer made in this petition does not deserve to be granted. Even otherwise, if the compensation has been paid on the basis of the agreement and if there is any breach of agreement, it is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and writ would not be the appropriate remedy.

This writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. “

6. Sri Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be entitled to payment of interest at the rates specified under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as the Rules of 1997, (under which the agreement was entered into), do not provide for payment of interest and since the Rules are silent with regard to payment of interest, the provisions of the