A prayer has been made by the writ petitioners, six in numbers, for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus for compelling the respondents to perform their public duty to pay the due amount of compensation and interest thereon, as per award of the Collector cum-DC, Churachandpur, being Award No.DC(CCP)/ LA/86-21 dated 7.7.91, as in Annexure A/4 to the writ petition, coupled with a prayer for due implementation of the order passed by this Court on 31.5.90 by Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No. 13 of 1990 (Imphal Bench) as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition. 2. Supporting the case of the writ petitioners, Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel, contended that in the year 1970; the officers and other personnel of 81 Road Construction Company of GREF, Govt of India, took forcible possession of 39.14 acres belonging to the petitioners, without paying any compensation to them for construction of the Highway named Churachandpur-Tipaimukh Road, and also for locating the Tuilaphai BRTF Camp, and without following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. As the authority concerned had failed to pay compensation to the writ petitioners for the land so acquired, they had earlier approached this Court on two occasions and as a result of which this Court by an order dated 8.9.87 passed in Civil Rule Nos. 125 of 1984 to 130 of 1984 directed the authorities concerned to complete the land acquisition proceedings, assess the compensation and pay the same to the owners, namely the present writ petitioners in accordance with law, as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/1 to the writ petition. The authorities concerned had failed to implement the said Court's order. Having no alternative, the petitioner No. l on behalf of the other petitioners, filed a contempt petition being Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No.13 of 1990 and this Court passed an order on 31.5.90, directing these officers/authorities for completing the acquisition proceedings and award compensation in favour of the owners of the acquired lands within a period of 3 months. Having no alternative, the petitioner No. l on behalf of the other petitioners, filed a contempt petition being Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No.13 of 1990 and this Court passed an order on 31.5.90, directing these officers/authorities for completing the acquisition proceedings and award compensation in favour of the owners of the acquired lands within a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of Land Acquisition, Churachandpur, after considering all pros and cons, facts and circumstances of the matter, made the Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being Award No.DC(CCP)LA/86 21 dated 7.7.91, assessing the total amount of compensation and interest thereon for the period from 1.8.71 to 31,7.91, aggregating to Rs.6,81,415.80 as payable to the writ petitioners, as reflected in the document marked as Annexure A/4. The learned senior counsel, also further argued that the GREF authorities, deposited only a sum of Rs. 1,78,503 with the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector towards the amount of compensation and interest, thereon, under a related Bank Draft, dated 9.10.91 and accordingly, the petitioners were paid the said amount, but the balance of the compensation and interest thereon, amounting to Rs.5,02,912.80 has not yet been deposited or paid till today without assigning any reasons thereof. As the petitioners are aggrieved by the actions of the respondents they .filed this writ v petition, for an appropriate direction from the ench of this Court. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is mainly resisted by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 by filing affidavit-in-opposition. According to Mr. Ibotombi Singh, learned Addl. CGSC, the actual land so far acquired for the purpose of the above mentioned construction, measures only 24.92 acres, and not 39.40 acres. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is mainly resisted by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 by filing affidavit-in-opposition. According to Mr. Ibotombi Singh, learned Addl. CGSC, the actual land so far acquired for the purpose of the above mentioned construction, measures only 24.92 acres, and not 39.40 acres. The State respondents particularly, the respondent No. 1 had amended the original Award a dated 4.1.91 (Annexure X/l) and the amended Award was published on 7.7.91, but it was received by the office of the respondent No.3 only on 8.10.91, and the amended Award for the value of Rs.6,81,415.80, which is approximately three times the value of the earlier Award and the area of land reduced to 24.92 acres, from initial land of 39.40 acres but the value of Award has been increased three times, and accordingly, the respondent Nos 3-7 have taken up the matter with the Govt of Manipur, with a request to examine the same and afford their decision, but in spite of the issuance of reminders etc on several occasions, no decision has been received from the Govt of Manipur. It is also urged by Mr. Ibotombi Singh, learned Addl. CGSC, that in pursuance to the office letter of 19.9.91, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, an amount of Rs. 1,78,503 for 24.92 acres calculated based on earlier Award rates plus 15% solatium was deposited and paid to the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, through a crossed Cheque No. 152069, for the land so acquired, and as such, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are not bound to pay another sum of Rs.5,02,912.80 being to balance of the amount awarded under the subsequent Award of 7.7.91. At the hearing Mr. RS Reisang, learned Addl. Govt Advocate, made a submission that the matter is left with the Court for an appropriate decision on it. 4. Now this Court is to examine as to whether the present writ petitioners have enforceable legal rights or not in the instant case, and whether they are entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation afforded to them under the related Award of 7.7.91, for their lands so acquired or not. 5. It is an admitted position that the original Award dated 4.1.91, as in Annexure X/l to the affidavit-in-opposition, was published, thus affording compensation of Rs.2,77,311 for acquisition of their lands, measuring 39.40 acres. 5. It is an admitted position that the original Award dated 4.1.91, as in Annexure X/l to the affidavit-in-opposition, was published, thus affording compensation of Rs.2,77,311 for acquisition of their lands, measuring 39.40 acres. But, by virtue of an order of this Court passed on 31.5.90 in Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No. 13 of 1990, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Colleetor of Land Acquisition Churachandpur, after considering all the pros and cons, facts and circumstances of the case made his Award dated 7.7.91, assessing the total amount of compensation and interest thereon for a period from 1.8.71 to 31.7.91, aggregating to Rs. 6,81,415.80, as payable to the writ petitioners as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/4 to the writ petition. After the said Award has been made and thereafter immediately on the publication of the fresh Award the respondents/GREF received an office letter being DC-9(CCP)LA/ 86-21 dated 19.9.91 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, through which ^ a request was made to them to deposit the amount for compensation available for 24.92 acres, and accordingly the respondents/GREF deposited the said amount of Rs 1,78,503 with the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, as seen in the document marked as Annexure X/4. 6. In my considered view, it is an established fact that the respondents/RCC (GREF) made part payment of Rs. 1,78,503/- out of the compensation money of Rs.6,12,415.80, and it shows that the said award dated 7.7.91 was accepted by the respondent/RCC (GREF). On further perusal of the available materials on record, it has been reveafed that, the respondent No. 4 who is the person interested, never made any written application to the Land Collector concerted, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, within the time prescribed therefore, even though, the respondent No. 4 had the knowledge that the area of land was reduced to 24.92 acres in the Award dated 7.7.91, from the area of 39.40 acres, under the related Award dated 4.1.91. In view of the above position, I hereby opine that the respondent Nos 4 to 7 are liable to deposit the balance compensation money of Rs.5,02,912.80, with the respondent No. 1 ie the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector of Land Acquisition, Churachandpur District, Churachandpur, Manipur for payment of the same, to the writ petitioners, and no interest shall be awarded in view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case. I make this observation in view of the fact that the respondents particularly the respondent Nos 4 to 7, had failed to perform their public duty, in not affording the compensation money under the related Award dated 7.7.91 to the writ petitioners in time. Apart from it, though the right of property is only a constitutional right after the Constitution (44th Amendment) such right of the petitioners over the land so acquired, should not be deprived of without affording due compensation. At this stage, I hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash New Delhi & another vs. KS Jagannathan & another, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679 , wherein the Apex Court held thus: “Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it on the High Court only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England. The High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can issue directions, orders or writs so as to enable the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the relief's to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. The High Courts have the power to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Govt or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised such discretion malafide or on irrelevant consideration or by ignoring the relevant consideration and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Govt or a public authority, and in a proper case in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Govt or public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully its discretion”. 7. 7. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I direct the respondent Nos 4 to 7 to deposit balance compensation money of Rs.5,02,912.80 with respondent No. 1, Collector of Land Acquisition and Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, Manipur within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order for payment the amount of compensation to the writ petitioners and the writ petitioners are entitled to it. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost,