JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a awardee in a land acquisition matter. 2. The facts need not be given in details as the controversy has remained only on two points. Still, some facts may be given.The land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring the land for the Rajasthan Housing Board to develop housing colonies. The land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 405/728 in village Bambala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur was also included in the said proceedings. On 7.10.1985, the respondent No. 3 passed the award in favour of the petitioner in the tune of Rs. 5,17,373.89. The petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of the award on the various grounds given-out in the writ petition. He also submitted, along with the writ petition, Schedule-1, according to which the quantum of award should have been Rs. 7,10,210.85, the details of which have been given in the said Schedule. The aforesaid grievance of the petitioner is no more, in as much as, on August 10, 1990, a fresh award has been passed by respondent No. 3 after redetermination of the claim of the petitioner. A copy of the said award has been placed on the record as Annex. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that after re-determination of the claim of the petitioner by the aforesaid fresh award dated August 10, 1990, the petitioner has no grievance so the calculation of the amount and compensation and interest is concerned. However, he submitted two grievances of the petitioner: (i) That the petitioner has not been paid the balance amount of Rs. 1,18,732.51 which is payable to him in view of the fresh award dated August 10, 1990 (Annex. 8), as such, the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the said amount till the payment is made; and (ii) That the petitioner is also entitled to a piece of land as awarded to other awardees. 3. It cannot be disputed that vide fresh award dated August 10, 1990, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,18,762.52 more after the payment of the compensation which was determined earlier. 3. It cannot be disputed that vide fresh award dated August 10, 1990, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,18,762.52 more after the payment of the compensation which was determined earlier. It is also not disputed that the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner.Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cast a duty on the Collector for the payment of the compensation amount or to deposit the same in the Court. It provides that on making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. No such contingencies have been brought to my notice by the respondent No. 3 or the concerned officer which prevented to make the payment to the petitioner or to deposit the same in the Court. Then Section 34 of the Act provides to pay interest if the compensation is not paid or deposited. Section 34 may be reproduced as under : "Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of (nine per centum) per annum from the time of so taking possession untill it shall have been so paid or deposited; Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry." In view of the express provision contained in Section-34 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 15% per annum on the excess amount re-determined by respondent No.-3 vide Annex.-8 from the date of the award till the said amount is paid to him. 4. So far another grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the same is not tenable.The petitioner did not produce any award showing any piece-of-land has been allotted to the awards. 4. So far another grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the same is not tenable.The petitioner did not produce any award showing any piece-of-land has been allotted to the awards. It appears from the reply of the respondent Board that the pacca houses of the awards were left-out from the acquisition proceedings and so far the petitioner is concerned, he was neither living in the said land nor he had any pacca house, as such, his case is not at par to those persons. According to the learned counsel for the Board, it is not a case of any discrimination against the petitioner. I agree with the contention made by the learned counsel for the Board that no case of discrimination in the matter of allotment of a piece-of-land is made out. Simply because certain houses of other awardees were left-out from the acquisition proceedings and the petitioner could not be given the said benefit as he had no pacca house on the land in question, it cannot said that the petitioner has been discriminated. It has not been disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no open land has been allotted to any awardee. Consequently, this petition is allowed in part. The respondent No. 3 is directed to make the payment of the amount of Rs. 1,18,732.52 as re-determined by him vide Annex. 8 to the petitioner within a period of one month from today along with 15% interest per annum from the date of the award (Annex. 8) till the payment is made. No costs.Petition Allowed in Part. *******