JUDGMENT 1. - The land in dispute situated in village Damodarpura Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur and belonging to the respondents Nos. 3 to 13 was required by the petitioner, which is a Government company, for setting up an electric sub-station at Jaipur. At the instance of the petitioner, the State of Rajasthan (the respondent no. 1) issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (the Act) on 30-4-1985. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 1-7-1985 and the Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Collectorate, Jaipur (the respondent no. 2) assessed the compensation payable to the land owners in respect of the land in dispute, the structures and trees etc. thereon vide award dated 17-3-1986 (Annexure-1) but observed that the question of grant of interest to the land owners on the amount of compensation would be decided later on. The respondents Nos. 3 to 13 moved applications before the respondent No. 2 praying that the question of grant of interest, which had been left open in the award, should be decided and they be paid the amount of interest to which they were legally entitled. The respondent No.2 issued notice of the said applications to the petitioner and, after hearing the matter, vide the impugned order dated 9-1-1990 (Annexure-2), held that the respondent Nos. 3 to 13 are entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date that the possession of the land in dispute was taken from them and at the rate of 15% per annum after the expiry of the above said period of one year till the payment of compensation was made to them. Since the land had been acquired at the instance of the petitioner company, vide letter dated 2-3-1990 (Annexure-3) the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount payable by way of interest to the respondents No.3 to 13. The petitioner challenged the above said orders Annexure-2 and annexure-3 by filing a writ petition dated 30-7-1990 in this court. It appears that the notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and the respondent No-5 Gyarsi Lal had filed the reply thereto. The writ petition was listed for hearing before V.K. Singhal, J. on 27-11-91 when it was dismissed in default. It appears that the notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and the respondent No-5 Gyarsi Lal had filed the reply thereto. The writ petition was listed for hearing before V.K. Singhal, J. on 27-11-91 when it was dismissed in default. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application for restoration of the writ petition and, it appears that on receipt of the report that the original file of the writ petition was not available, while allowing the restoration application, V.K. Singhal, J. vide order dated 25-3-1992, directed that the copy of the writ petition alongwith the paper book and the reply filed thereto should be filed in the registry on the basis of which the file of the writ petition should be completed and, consequently, the reconstructed file was put up before me for disposal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. 3. Shri G.G. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent No.2 after making the award (Annex. 1) had filed it in the office of the Collector and, thereafter, he could not have announced a supplementary award in the form of Annexure-2 as the award (annexure-1) had become final in view of section 12 of the Act and could not be reviewed, altered or modified. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in case Bhera Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLR 995 : AIR 1986 Rajasthan 113 , and on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case Barumal Jain & ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, AIR 1962 Allahabad 61 . It has further been contended that even if any supplementary award could be announced by the Land Acquisition Officer, it could have been done within two years of the date of declaration made under section 6 of the Act and that Annexure-2 having been made long after the expiry of the period mentioned above it is illegal in view of section 11-A of the Act. 4. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to examine the provisions of sections 11, 11-A and 12 of the Act. The said provisions read as under: "11. 4. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to examine the provisions of sections 11, 11-A and 12 of the Act. The said provisions read as under: "11. Enquiry and award by Collector.-(1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of- 1. The true area of the land; 2. The compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and 3. The apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: (Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. 2)....... 3)...... 4)....... 11-A. Period within which an award shall be made. The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court all be excluded.) 12. Explanation.- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court all be excluded.) 12. Award of Collector when to be final.-(1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made." 5. Section 11 quoted above shows that on the basis of the enquiry, mentioned therein, the Collector has to make the award under his hand of the true area of the land, the compensation payable for the same and the value of the compensation assessed among the persons known or believed to be interested in the land and section 11-A, quoted above, provides that such award has to be made within the period of two years from the date of declaration issued under section 6 of the Act. Section 12, quoted above, provides that when the award made under section 11 is filed in the office of the Collector it becomes final and conclusive evidence as regards (a) true area of the land, (b) the value of such land and (c) the apportionment of the compensation assessed for the land in question among the persons interested therein. The finality attached to the award in view of section 12 of the Act, is only in regard to the factors mentioned above, i.e., the area of the land, the value of the land and the apportionment of the compensation assessed for the land among the persons interested therein. 6. In light of the provisions, quoted above, it has to be examined whether the order dated 9-1-1990 (annexure-2) is an award within the meaning of section 11 of the Act and by passing it the respondent No.2 has reviewed the award dated 17-3-1986 (Annexure-1). 6. In light of the provisions, quoted above, it has to be examined whether the order dated 9-1-1990 (annexure-2) is an award within the meaning of section 11 of the Act and by passing it the respondent No.2 has reviewed the award dated 17-3-1986 (Annexure-1). If it is held that Annexure-2 is an award/supplementary award, within the meaning of section 11 of the Act, it certainly could not have been made by the respondent No. 2 not only on the ground that award dated 17-3-1986 (Annexure-1) had become final but also on the ground that it was made beyond the statutory period provided in section 11-A of the Act. If however, on examination, it is found that the order dated 19-1-1990 (Annexure-2) is not an award within the meaning of section 11 of the Act, it cannot be said to be a supplementary award made by the respondent no.2 in respect of the land in dispute. 7. I have gone through the order dated 19-1-1990 (Annexure-2). While passing this order, the respondent No.2 has not dealt with any of the factors(a) to (c), quoted above, but has only determined the question of payment of interest to the respondents No. 3 to 13 from the date that the land in dispute was taken from them till the date of payment of the compensation to them. This right of the respondents is statutory in view of section 34 of the Act and the respondents No.2, who had left the question open, while making the award annexure-1, had no discretion in the matter and was bound to pass an order directing that the interest, above said, should be paid to the said respondents. In this view of the matter, order Annexure-2 cannot be said to be an award/ supplementary award and, as such, it is not hit by the provisions of sections 11-A and 12 of the Act. The Authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner related to the cases where the value of the land, which is one of the factors determined in the award, after the award had been filed in the office of the Collector, had been changed in the supplementary award and it was held that this amounted to review of the earlier award and such review was without jurisdiction. Those authorities are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. 8. Those authorities are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. 8. Since the land in dispute was acquired at the instance of the petitioner company, the charges for its acquisition has to be paid by the petitioner in view of section 50 of the Act and it cannot be disputed that such charges would include the payment of interest and, in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that by issuing letter dated 2-3-1990 Annexure-3 to the petitioner the respondent no.2 acted illegally or unreasonably. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, which is a Government company, thought it proper to file this writ petition with a view to avoid its statutory liability of paying the amount of interest to the respondents Nos. 3 to 13 and to deprive the said respondents to receive their rightful dues. 9. In my view, this writ petition is not only meritless but is also frivolous and, as such, I dismiss it with costs assessed at Rs. 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only).Petition dismissed. *******