JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—A letter addressed to this Court by twenty-six residents of Village Nau, Illaqa Shanore, Sub-Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has been registered as a Writ Petition. Petitioners have averred in the writ petition that their lands in village was utilised by the Public Works Department Division No, !, Mandi, about 20-22 years back for the construction of Panarsa-Jwalapur Parasar road and till today they have cot been paid any amount by way of compensation for the said land despite the fact that they had drawn the attention of the concerned authorities to pay the compensation. Their further grievance is that injustice has been done to them, inasmuch as, compensation has been paid to the owners of the adjoining holdings, whose land was also utilised for the construction of the said road. The petitioners have sought a just relief and redressal of their grievances. 2. On June 12, 1990, notice was issued to the respondents which was accepted by the learned Advocate General on their behalf. A reply has been filed on the affidavit of the Superintending Engineeer, (st Circle, HP PWD, Mandi dated August 16, 1990. The meterial part of the affidavit in so far as the grievance of the petitioners are concerned, is as under: "......it is fact that the land of the petitioners is being used as the possession had already been taken by this Department for the construction of Aut Takoli Prashar road during the year 197576. The land is situated in Muhal Nau, Piun and Dhangsi but the compensation for the said land acquired for the purpose could not be paid owing to non-finalisation of the acquisition papers. The Land Acquisition papers under section 4 have been initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer (Mandi) and were sent to the Chief Engineer (N) HP PWD, Dharamshala by the Superintending Engineer 1st Circle, HP PWD Mandi vide his letter No. SEI-R-25-41/86 dated 24-9-1986 for getting the Notification issued under section 4. The said papers were received back from the Secretary (PW) stating that the period for the issuance of Notification under section 4 has lapsed and the fresh land acquisition papers of above Muhals be prepared for getting the notification under section 4 issued. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has prepared the land acquisition papers afresh and were sent to the Executive Engineer, Mandi Division No. 1 vide his letter No. LAO MD-KS-Kullu/17-87-1131-32, dt. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has prepared the land acquisition papers afresh and were sent to the Executive Engineer, Mandi Division No. 1 vide his letter No. LAO MD-KS-Kullu/17-87-1131-32, dt. 3-4-1987 for verification and completion. The Executive Engineer Mandi Division No. 1 submitted the aforesaid papers to the Assistant Engineer Mandi Sub-Division No. 1 vide his office letter No. M PI-W-244/87-509, dated 13-4-1987 for verification and inspection of site with revenue authority. The Assistant Engineer Mandi Sub-Division No. !, further submitted these papers to the SDO (C) Mandi vide his letter No. 2504-06, dated 20-4-1987 for joint inspection of the site who further submitted these papers to the Tehsildar Sadar vide his letter No. SDM-17 (9) 79-1013-14, dated 29-4-1987. In order to get the papers finalised, the Assistant Engineer, Mandi Sub-Division No.], Mandi reminded the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi vide his letter No, 3865-66, dated 26-10-1987 and subsequent reminder No. 4445-46, dated 29-M988, No, 268-6% dated 30-5-1988 and No 1776-77, dated 7-2-1989 and No. 2299-2302, dated 12-3-1990 but no reply with regard to this matter was received from him. Therefore Executive Engineer Mandi Division No. 1 requested the Deputy Commissioner Mandi vide Executive Engineer Mandi Division No. 1 letter No. MDI-W-244/89-5836-38, dated 1-31-1989 and even remainder No. 6706, dated 11-12-19 # to direct the Tehsildar Sadar for getting the joint inspection of these Muhals/roads conducted and paper returned to his office for taking further necessary action in the matter. After great persuation, the Land Acquisition papers were collected personally which were lying pending with the Naib Tehsildar Aut Distt Mandi and were sent to the Land Acquisition Officer Mandi vide his letter No MDI-W-244/ATP Road/90-1823-24, dated 5-6-1990 for getting the papers completed in all respect. The Land Acquisition papers duly corrected have now been received from Land Acquisition Officer and have been sent to the Chief Engineer (N) HP PWD, Dharamshala vide Superintending Engineer 1st Circle Mandi letter No. 13162-64, dated 20-7-90 for getting the Notification under section 4 issued from the Government. The land acquisition papers have been further sent to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (PW) to the Government of HP. Simla by the Chief Engineer (N) HPPWD Dharamshala vide his letter No. PW (R) Notification U/S-4/7747-48, dated 7-8-1990. The payment to the right holders is likely to be made after the issuance of Notification under sections 4, 6 and 7 by the Government. The land acquisition papers have been further sent to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (PW) to the Government of HP. Simla by the Chief Engineer (N) HPPWD Dharamshala vide his letter No. PW (R) Notification U/S-4/7747-48, dated 7-8-1990. The payment to the right holders is likely to be made after the issuance of Notification under sections 4, 6 and 7 by the Government. The land compensation therefore can be paid to the petitioners within three years. So far the legitimate claims of the petitioners are concerned, the same shall be paid after the award is announced." 3. It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been deprived of their property, otherwise than in due course in law. This is not the first case of its kind which has come to the notice of this Court, In Jau Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, ILR 1984 HP 351, the court was concerned with a case where possession was taken six years before the property was notified for acquisition and compensation was not paid for a period of nearly twelve years In yet another case, Tilak Raj Sud v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Writ Petition No. 402 of 1984, the court was concerned with a casa where admittedly the possession of Iand falling within the limits of one village was taken and road was constructed thereon even before the issue of notification under Sec. 6 and the possession of land falling within the limits of another village was taken and road was constructed thereon before the award was made. Yet in another case Nokhia and others v. State of H. P. and others, ILR 1984 HP 906, a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Desai, C. J, highlighted the State of affairs which came to its notice by issuing directions to the following effect:— "(a) Instructions be issued to all limbs and subordinates that no . Yet in another case Nokhia and others v. State of H. P. and others, ILR 1984 HP 906, a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Desai, C. J, highlighted the State of affairs which came to its notice by issuing directions to the following effect:— "(a) Instructions be issued to all limbs and subordinates that no . citizen should be deprived of his property save in accordance with law, that is, the law relating to the acquisitioning and requisitioning of property and that in rare and exceptional cases of emergent public utility projects, the execution whereof cannot brook any delay in the public interest and where the provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be resorted for reasons such as the nature and character of land, possession of the land or any specified portion thereof may be person(s) interested in the land after the execution of an agreement in writing, between the said person(s) and the competent authority, in accordance with law, incorporating the conditions, inter alia, that the land acquisition proceedings shall be initiated and completed and the compensation will be paid within a reasonable * time to be specified in the agreement and that interest will be paid from the date of taking over of possession ; and (b) in order to avoid proliferation of litigation and to alleviate genuine hardship of persons similarly situate, all cases like the present, where there has been a deviation from law and persons have been deprived of the possession of their property save in accordance with law, be taken up for regularisation by initiating/ completing acquisition proceedings in accordance with law with the utmost expedition and within a time-limit which may be set up by the State Government bearing in mind the need of striking a just balance between the inevitable lapse of time which is reasonably likely to occur even if urgent action is taken in that direction and the duty of providing quick relief by emergent remedial measures to the aggrieved persons and, in all such cases, equitable compensation, on the basis of which the Court has so far awarded the same in such and similar cases and proposes to award herein, be paid to such persons from the date of taking over of possession till the date of actual payment, in addition to the compensation, solatium and interest at the statutory rate which becomes payable under the law. The Court has so far viewed cases where such unauthorised actions were taken in the past leniently but any further lapse will have to be strictly viewed if it is brought to its notice," 4. The manner in which the residents of Village Nau, the petitioners, have been treated by the respondents cannot be appreciated. We are conscious of the fact that sometimes the execution of some public utility projects, calls for prompt action if the urgency of the situation so requires, However, even in such cases, the authority cannot and will not act in defiance of the statutory and constitutional provisions by depriving the land-owners of the possession of their property save in accordance with law. Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly the Act) Gives statutory power in case of urgency and resort can be had to the said provisions if there is need. Even according to the respondents, the petitioners were dispossessed from their land almost fifteen years ago, Papers for initiating proceedings under the Act are stated to have been moved in the year 1986, after a lapse of almost 10 years from the date of taking possession, yet, till today notification under section 4 of the Act has not been issued. Papers have been moving from one department of the government to the other but with no effective result. Inordinate and unexplained delay in such like cases due to callous approach of the officials of the government is likely to result In loss to the public exchequer, inasmuch as, the petitioners will have to be paid not only the market value of the land as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act but also the interest on such amount of compensation from the date of taking over of possession. Had adequate precautions been taken, the loss could have been avoided by making payment of amount of compensation at the market rate prevalent at the time when the possession was taken and the amount of interest now to be paid for 15 years could also have been saved. 5. Coming now to the question of the grant of reliefs in the present case. 5. Coming now to the question of the grant of reliefs in the present case. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, it is expedient and in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Act and complete the same within a period of one year from today and making payment of the amount of compensation in accordance with law to the petitioners. We further direct the payment of interest in accordance with law to be given to the petitioners from the date of taking over of possession, that is, January 1, 1976 on the amount of compensation along with an equitable interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of payment of compensation. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly.