Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this application the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents State of Bihar and its officials of pay the annuity to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 9, 704.23 annually with effect from 1954 on account of vesting of Tauzi Nos. 6155 and 3189 under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 2. The short relevant facts are that the petitioners No. l and 2 are deities installed in the temple and the petitioner No.3 claimed to be the Shebait of the deity. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner No.3 endowed the said two Tauzis fetching an income of Rs. 18, 000.00 per year as expenses towards Bhograg, upkeep of the temple, performance of Utsav (ceremonies) connected with the deities and management of the properties, etc. It is also not indispute that the said two Tauzis vested in the State of Bihar as per provisions of the Binar Land Reforms Act and the landlord was entitled for compensation for which a Compensation Case No. 7 of 1955-67 was initiated by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bhagalpur for determination of the amount of annuity payable to the petitioners. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur, on enquiry, had recommended to the Government to recognize the trust as genuine and, further, for payment of annuity at the aforesaid rate from 1954, i.e., the year of vesting. It is stated that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, also wrote in this connection to the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur, vide letter dated 13.2.1985, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1, for, grant of approval of a yearly annuity. Thereafter, the Additional Collector issued public notice but, in spite of expiry of due date, no payment was made on the ground of want of allotment of fund from the Revenue Department of the State of Bihar. The petitioners represented before the Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur to send the file to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhagalpur to enable payment of annuity. However, in the meantime, it appears that a complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as a result of which payment was withheld. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. However, in the meantime, it appears that a complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, as a result of which payment was withheld. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the reasons behind the non-payment of the annuity was also due to an instruction received from the Bihar State Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) vide letter No. 1843 dated 13.5.1985 whereby the district administration was directed to withhold the payment till a clearance is received from the Board with respect to the trust in question. A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure A/3. 4. In this regard Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in paragraph 18 of the writ application wherein it has been stated that (he Additional Sub-Judge, Bhagalpur, in the suit filed by the Board held that the trust in question was a private trust and as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board preferred appeal against the same in the High Court vide Misc. Appeal No. 5/68 which was dismissed on 17.4.78. 5. As regards the objection raised by the respondent No. 7 it has been stated, in paragraph 20 of the writ application, that the same was withdrawn and he has no objection to the grant of annuity to the petitioners. 6. Thus, there appears to be no dispute now with regard to the claim of the petitioner. However, from perusal of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 at pages 7 and 8 it appears that the only, plea now remains that the fund for payment of the annuity is not being made available to the concerned authority. In my opinion, this plea cannot be sustained in order to disentitle the petitioners from claiming the relief prayed for in the writ application. Further, find that at least from July, 1985 when the respondent No. 7 withdrew his objection there has been gross negligence on the part of die State and its authorities in not making payment of the annuity amount to the petitioners for which they were entitled in law. Further, find that at least from July, 1985 when the respondent No. 7 withdrew his objection there has been gross negligence on the part of die State and its authorities in not making payment of the annuity amount to the petitioners for which they were entitled in law. This makes the petitioners entitled to claim interest over and agouti the lawful amount payable to them by way of annuity. Even otherwise the petitioners are entitled for claiming interest as it cannot be disputed that the amount lawfully payable to the petitioners, was retained by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the respondent authority are directed to release the amounts lawfully payable to the petitioners as annuity on account of vesting of (he aforementioned two Tauzis under the Bihar Land Reforms Act along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum over and above the due amount. The payment of the principal amount should be made per emptorily within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment order before the concerned authority and so far as the interest is concerned, that should be paid within three months thereafter. 8. However, in the facts arid circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs.