Judgment :- (RAMANUJAM, J.) 1. The petitioner was a landholder of three inam estates in Sankarankoil taluk, Tirunelveli District which were taken over by the Government on 1st October, 1951 under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 26 of 1948. Under the Act, the Director of Settlements has to fix the basic annual sum before determining the total compensation. Under S. 31 of the said Act, one of the items that should be taken into account in fixing the basic annual sum is the whole of the average net annual miscellaneous income from all other sources in an estate derived or derivable by the Government between 1st July, 1952 to 30th June, 1955. According to the petitioner, one of the main sources of miscellaneous income which the Government was under a duty bound to realise under Ss. 3(b) 31 (iv) and 34 from the estates in question is the income from the sale of trees in the tank beds and bunds of and in the porambokes and hillock lands, The petitioner claimed that in determining the total compensation payable for the estates the said sources of miscellaneous income, that is the income by sale of the tress in the tank beds, etc., should be taken into account. This claim was rejected by the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 1147 to 1149 of 1964 questioning the order of the Director of Settlements and the Board of Revenue. This Court allowed the said writ petitions and directed the Director of Settlements to determine the said miscellaneous income and re-fix the total compensation. 2. Subsequently, the settlement authorities and the Forest Officers inspected the villages in question and enumerated the various trees. Finally, the Board of Revenue revised and increased the basic annual income and re-fixed the total compensation. As the petitioner felt that the amounts fixed as annual miscellaneous revenue by the Board of Revenue were very low, he preferred W.P. Nos. 3066 and 3069 and W.P. No. 777/1971. This court by its order d. 20th November 1970 held that all varieties of trees in the tank beds and bunds and porambokes in addition to the babul trees should also be taken into account for the purpose of refixing the annual miscellaneous revenue W.P. Nos. 3066 and 3069 and W.P. No. 777/1971. This court by its order d. 20th November 1970 held that all varieties of trees in the tank beds and bunds and porambokes in addition to the babul trees should also be taken into account for the purpose of refixing the annual miscellaneous revenue W.P. Nos. 3066 and 3069 were therefore allowed by this Court with a direction to the Board of Revenue to determine the annual miscellaneous revenue in accordance with the Law taking into account all types of trees. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue on 15th September 1971 re-fixed the number of trees that would be available during the three relevant faslis and determined the quantum of miscellaneous revenue on that basis for all the three estates. 3. Long thereafter, the Board of Revenue issued a show cause notice, d. 2nd March 1972 as to why its earlier order, d. 15th September 1971 determining the annual miscellaneous revenue in respect of the three estates should not be revised. Faced with the show cause notice the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 697, 874 and 875 of 1972 in this Court praying for a Writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent the Board of Revenue from going back on its earlier order. This Court by its order, d. 5th December 1972 * held that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise its earlier order and in that view that set aside the show cause notice, d. 2nd March 1972 issued by the Board of Revenue. 4. The petitioner now complains in this Writ Petition that though the estates were taken over as early as 1st October 1951, the total compensation payable under the Act has not yet been finally determined in respect of the three estates, that so far as the miscellaneous income is concerned even though the matter was decided by this Court on more than one occasion the respondent has not chosen to pay till now the compensation as determined by the Board of Revenue in its order, d. 15th September 1971 and that in view of the long lapse of time since the Board of Revenue passed its order on 15th September 1971, the interest of Justice requires that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing tee respondent to pay the compensation as computed in its order, d. 15th September 1971 forthwith. 5. 5. The counter affidavit filed in this petition after getting cut the details of various proceedings taken in relation to these estates and the steps taken at various stages to estimate the miscellaneous revenue in respect of the three estates, proceeds to state that the delay in payment of the compensation as determined by the respondent in its order, d. 15th September 1971 was cue to the fact that was an attempt to file writ appeals against the order of the Court, d. 5th December 1972 in W.P. No. 697/72, etc., and further appeals to the Supreme Court which had however failed. In the counter affidavit, it has not been stated as to when the order of the Beard of Revenue, d. 15th September 1971 will be given effect to and the payment of compensation as per the said order will be made to the petitioner. The order of the Court, d. 5th December 1972 in W.P. No. 697/1972, etc., has become final. Hence, the respondent is bound to make the payment in pursuance of its own order d. 15th September 1971. Even though the said order is more than three years old, no payment has been made in pursuance of that order till now. In the circumstances the petitioner is fully justified in saying that respondent has to be directed by the issue of a writ of mandamus to effect the payment of compensation as computed in its order, d. 15th September, 1971 without any further delay. 6. Though the respondent has finally fixed the mode of computation of the basis annual sum in its order, d. 15th September, 1971 and directed the Director of Settlements to compute the total compensation for the three estates in question, on the lines suggested by it, so far the total compensation as suggested by the Board, in the said order has not been determined and paid to the petitioner. An attempt on the part of the respondent to revise the said order, d. 15th September, 1971 had failed. This court bad held that the respondent is bound to give effect to that order and it has no jurisdiction to revise the same. An attempt on the part of the respondent to revise the said order, d. 15th September, 1971 had failed. This court bad held that the respondent is bound to give effect to that order and it has no jurisdiction to revise the same. Even though the counter affidavit filed in the case indicates that an unsuccessful attempt has been made by the respondent to take the matter further in appeals, so long as no stay orders have been obtained, the respondent should have given effect to its order, atleast with a reasonable time. 7. In the circumstances there appears to be no justification for withholding payment of the total compensation due to the petitioner as per the basis adopted by the respondent in the order d. 15th September, 1971. I, therefore, direct the respondent to give effect to the said order and deposit the total compensation computed on the basis of that order before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this order after giving credit to the amounts already deposited. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even as per the show cause notice issued by the respondent for revising the basis adopted in the order, d. 15th September, 1971, the respondent has mentioned some enhanced amount as payable to the petitioner in respect of each of the two estates and even that amount has not been deposited with the Tribunal by the respondent. But having regard to the fact that the show cause notice has net resulted in any final order, the Board of Revenue perhaps did not deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even according to the respondent an additional enhanced compensation as shown in the show cause notice will be payable to the petitioner in respect of she three estates and there is no reason to as to why those amounts should not be directed to be paid forthwith. It is seen from the show cause notice which had been impugned in the earlier Writ Petition Nos. 697, 874 and 875 of 1972 that the respondent bad revised total compensation for each of the estates. The respondent cannot have any objection for the payment of the total compensation fixed by it in the show cause notice. It is seen from the show cause notice which had been impugned in the earlier Writ Petition Nos. 697, 874 and 875 of 1972 that the respondent bad revised total compensation for each of the estates. The respondent cannot have any objection for the payment of the total compensation fixed by it in the show cause notice. Though the petitioners claim is for more, having regard to tee fact that the show cause notices were issued as early as March, 1972, he will be entitled to have the benefit of the amount as offered by the respondent in the show cause notices. 9. Hence in addition to the above direction the respondent is directed to deposit the amount fixed and offered in the show cause notice relating to each of the estates within two weeks from this date before the Tribunal if the amount has not been included in the total compensation already deposited. 10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.