JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioners’ land was compulsorily acquired videnotification under Section 4 (1) /17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) published in the official gazette on 15.12.1999; and newspapers in ‘Vartman Ankur’ and ‘Dainik Hind’ on 1.1.2000 and 6.1.2000 respectively. The notification under Section 6 /17 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 22.4.2000, and in the same newspapers in which the notification under Section 4 was published, on 28.4.2000, and also by publication for general public on 20.5.2000. By these 24 connected writ petitions they have prayed for calling for the records, and issuing writs of mandamus commanding the Collector, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, to pay to them compensation at the current rate of Rs. 850/- per sq. mtr. and all other benefits with higher rate of interest under the Act and also the interest, in accordance with the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Karnataka Electricity Board v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 3 SCC 141 . 2. We have heard Shri A. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri M.C. Tripathi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Bal Krishna and Ram Krishna, Standing Counsels appear for the State. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for Greater Noida. 3. The information supplied to us by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar through the Standing Counsels and made part of the record shows that beginning with 26.11.1993 the State Government acquired the land for planned industrial development, by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, established under the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976. Four notifications under Section 4/17 of the Act were published on 26.11.1993, 21.12.1993, 22.12.1993 and 29.12.1993 including lands of villages Haldawana, Namauli, Kashna, Choorharpur Khadar respectively. The notifications under Section 6 of the Act for these villages were published in the year 1994 and the possession was transferred in the year 1994-95. Under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 the development authority proposed the compensation of land at the rates of Rs. 50; Rs. 66.39; Rs. 40.15; Rs. 66.39 in 1993 for these four villages respectively. The farmers raised their demands for increasing the compensation, on which a uniform compensation at the rate of Rs. 184/- per sq. mtr. 50; Rs. 66.39; Rs. 40.15; Rs. 66.39 in 1993 for these four villages respectively. The farmers raised their demands for increasing the compensation, on which a uniform compensation at the rate of Rs. 184/- per sq. mtr. was worked out by award under Section 11 (2) of the Act dated 20.8.1999, and was accepted by the farmers. 4. In respect of villages Tugalpur, Haldwana, Tusiyana the notifications under Section 4/17 were published on 9.9.1997, 13.6.1997 and 25.11.1997 followed by notifications under Section 6/17 on 9.10.1998, 23.6.1997 and 23.11.1998 respectively. The possession was handed over between January to July, 1999 and that compensation under the Agreement Rules, 1997 was offerred and accepted at Rs. 184/- , Rs. 160/- and Rs. 173/- respectively. 5. The lands in villages Aichar, Haldwana, Birora, Chapraula, Surajpur, Vaniyanpur and Virodi-Chakrasenpur were proposed to be acquired by notification under Section 4/17 dated 2.9.1999, 13.9.1999, 15.12.1999, 16.9.1999, 18.9.2000, 23.6.1999 and 15.12.1999 respectively. The notification under Section 6/17 of the Act in respect of these six villages were published between January to December, 2000, and the possession was taken between March to December, 2000. In respect of all these villages the compensation under the Agreement Rules, 1997 was worked out at the rate of Rs. 203.55 and that 80% compensation was paid in the year 2000-01. 6. The land in villages Choti Bachera, Mutrampur, Ajayabpur were acquired by notifications under Section 4/17 of the Act dated 28.11.2002. The land in village Dabra, Tusiyana, Raipur, Bomar were acquired by notification under Section 4/17 of the Act dated 13.10.2005 and the lands in Village Dhada and Roni were acquired by notification under Section 4/17 of the Act dated 3.10.2005. The notification under Section 6/17 of the Act in respect of these lands were published within one year, and that possession was taken in the year 2006 and 2007 from June 2006 to October, 2006. The compensation under the Agreement Rules of 1997 was worked out for this land at Rs. 322/- per sq. yard and has been paid over to all the land owners. It is reported that in the 76th meeting of Board of Greater Noida dated 20.1.2009, approval was given and enhancement in the compensation at the rate of Rs. 259/-, toalling Rs. 581/- per sq. mtr. and was paid on 7.1.2009. 7. In all these writ petitions the land situate in Village Viraunda Pargana Dankaur Distt. It is reported that in the 76th meeting of Board of Greater Noida dated 20.1.2009, approval was given and enhancement in the compensation at the rate of Rs. 259/-, toalling Rs. 581/- per sq. mtr. and was paid on 7.1.2009. 7. In all these writ petitions the land situate in Village Viraunda Pargana Dankaur Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar measuring 58.981 hectrs. was acquired by the notifications under Section 4/17 (1) dated 15.12.1999 and the notification under Section 6 (17) dated 22.4.2000. The possession was taken on 28.7.2000 and that all the petitioners have received 80% of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 203.55 per sq. mtr. in the year 2000 itself under an agreement executed by them under the Agreement Rules, 1997. The 20% agreed compensation was not paid to them for one reason or other and that every time petitioners approached the Collector, they were informed that the matter is pending in the State Government. Some of the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 36770 of 2008, Smt. Rajkali v. State of U.P., with the prayer to prepare the award in accordance with law, and to announce the same under Section 11 of the Act or in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Collector to prepare the award under Section 11 (2) of the Act expeditiously within four months. In Writ Petition No. 19960 of 2009 a similar order was passed on 1.5.2009 directing further that on receipt of the application the Collector shall call for original records and examine as to whether any agreement referable to Section 11 (2) of the Act was entered into between the petitioner and State authorities. In case such agreement was entered into, he was required to examine as to whether the award was made under Section 11 (2) of the Act, and pass orders accordingly in eight weeks. 8. The Addl. District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar made an award on 9.1.2009. The copy of the award produced by the Standing Counsel shows that it is both under Section 11 (1) and also under Section 11 (2) of the Act, for those persons, who had entered into agreement and had accepted the 80% compensation at the rate of Rs. 203.55. The copy of the award produced by the Standing Counsel shows that it is both under Section 11 (1) and also under Section 11 (2) of the Act, for those persons, who had entered into agreement and had accepted the 80% compensation at the rate of Rs. 203.55. The award provides for compensation for 57.049 hects., in accordance with the Scheme of Agreement. The details of the acquired land, the area covered by the agreement, ‘pushtaini’ or ‘gair pushtaini’ is given under the heading 1. The ‘pushtaini’ farmers are provided compensation at Rs. 203.55 sq. mtrs. and the ‘gair pushtaini’ at the rate of Rs. 177/- per sq. mtr. The award was also made for constructions, trees and other structures totalling Rs. 13,88,22,930/-. 9. For those persons, who had not entered into agreement in the year 2000, the award was made under the heading 2 under Section 11 (1) of the Act for 1.932 hects. or 23098.99 sq. yard at the rate of Rs. 83.88 per sq. yard with additional compensation at 12 1/2 %; the compensation for the land building and trees; 30% solatium and interest worked out totaling Rs. 38,39,603/-. The interest is payable at 9% from 28.7.2000 (the date of possession) for one year, and thereafter upto the date of award at 15% per annum. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State has caused hostile discrimination in giving compensation at different rates in the award. The Government Order dated 27.11.2001 had rescinded Clause 4 of the Government Order dated 7th July, 2001, fixing the compensation on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act under the Agreement Rules of 1997. It was specifically provided in the Government Order dated 27.11.2001, that the compensation under the agreement should be determined, on the date of award, and that 100% payment should be made within 15 days, failing which interest should be paid in accordance with the Act. The Greater Noida kept on referring the matter back to the State Government and that inspite of Government Orders dated 30.1.2002, 22.2.2002, 26.3.2002, 2.5.2002, 13.5.2002, 17.6.2002, 6.7.2002 and 24.9.2002 the award was not declared. Finally in pursuance to the orders of the Court the award was declared on 9.1.2009 and thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation of the land on the agreed rates on 9.1.2009, which is Rs. Finally in pursuance to the orders of the Court the award was declared on 9.1.2009 and thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation of the land on the agreed rates on 9.1.2009, which is Rs. 581/- and is now proposed to be raised Rs. 850/- per sq. mtr. in terms of the latest decision of the State Government on the date of the award. In the alternative Shri A. Prasad submits that the unpaid amount of 20% compensation should be paid with interest of 15% from the date of taking possession on 28.7.2001. 11. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had entered into agreement voluntarily for compensation at excessively high rate of Rs. 203.55 per sq. mtr. in the year 2000, when the market value of the land was Rs. 83.38 per sq. mtr. The 80% amount was paid over after executing all the necessary documents including the applications, affidavit, surrender of all title document, etc. The petitioners, for the reasons best known to them and on misinterpretation of the Government Order dated 27.11.2001 believed that they will get the compensation on the date of award, did not come forward to receive remaining 20% of the amount. It is stated that 10% of the advance compensation was deposited by the Greater Noida on 13.7.1999; 70% advance compensation was deposited on 7.2.2000 and that remaining amount was deposited in two installments on 2.11.2000 and 22.3.2001 totaling Rs. 32,67,74,944.85. Many farmers in these villages received 20% compensation between 20.11.2002 to 26.8.2008. He has provided a list in which, on 20.11.2002 Shri Parmal and Shri Mohan Lal, sons of Harsaiya received compensation for Khasra No. 4 area 2.520 hects. On 20.11.2002. The last of the 13 farmers namely Smt. Brahmo Devi wife of Shri Likhi Ram received compensation for Khasra No. 14, 15 and 16 area 0.632 hects. On 26.8.2008. The petitioners never came forward to accept the remaining 20% of the compensation, which was kept in revenue deposit with the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. 12. Section 11 provides for preparation of the award. In order to appreciate the difference between the award to be prepared under sub-section (1) and the award under agreement under sub-section (2). Section 11 is quoted as below : “11. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. 12. Section 11 provides for preparation of the award. In order to appreciate the difference between the award to be prepared under sub-section (1) and the award under agreement under sub-section (2). Section 11 is quoted as below : “11. Enquiry and award by Collector.—(1) On the day so fixed, or 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 and [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— (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) 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 or 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not, in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not, in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.]” 13. The U.P. Land Acquisition Act (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 provide for a fair and reasonable method of payment of compensation. In order to avoid litigation and uncertainty delay in preparing the award and payment of compensation, the Rules provide for an offer to be made by the acquiring body to the Collector. The Collector after he is satisfied with the amount offerred for compensation, will issue notice and call for a meeting with the land owners. If an agreement is reached in these meetings on a prescribed form appended to the Rules, the compensation is to be paid to the land owners, who are parties to the agreement. The entire amount is paid to the farmers under the agreement without any unreasonable delay. 14. In the present case it is not denied that all the petitioners had entered into agreement to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 203.55 per sq. mtr. for ‘pushtaini’ and Rs. 177/- per sq. mtr. for ‘gair pushtaini’ farmers, in the year 2000, immediately after acquisition of the land by the notifications under Section 4 /17 dated 15.12.1999 and under Sections 6/17 dated 22.4.2000 and the taking over of possession on 28.7.2000. They were aware, on the date of agreement, that 80% amount has been deposited in advance by Greater Noida and they agreed to accept 80% of the amount by making applications for compensation under agreement and by affirming affidavits to accept the agreement dated 30.10.2000 accepting compensation at Rs. 203.55 per sq. mtr. They agreed that they will not claim any amount in addition to the compensation offerred to them. The agreement enclosed a declaration annexing the khatauni (record of title) in proof of the ownership and the signature of receipt of the payment on the prescribed FHB Volume 1 Appendix 11, Form CC. 15. All the petitioners had appeared before the Addl. They agreed that they will not claim any amount in addition to the compensation offerred to them. The agreement enclosed a declaration annexing the khatauni (record of title) in proof of the ownership and the signature of receipt of the payment on the prescribed FHB Volume 1 Appendix 11, Form CC. 15. All the petitioners had appeared before the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar and accepted that they have entered into agreement and that had accepted 80% compensation in terms of agreement dated 30.10.2000. Most of the petitioners also gave an application on 25.11.2008 for payment of the balance of 20% compensation with interest after declaring the award. They were also conscious of this fact that at that time the compensation was being determined for other villages under Section 11 (1) at Rs. 83.38 per sq. mtr. along with solatium and interest under the Act. 16. The petitioners had agreed and after signing the agreement to accept the compensation at Rs. 203.55 for ‘pushtaini’ and Rs. 177/- for ‘gair pushtaini’ farmers are not entitled to claim compensation at any higher rate. The date of award referred to in the Government Order dated 27.11.2001 shifted the determination of compensation, only in the cases of agreement, to the date of award, which was to be followed immediately after the agreements. It had no relevance to any date subsequent to the date of agreement. The petitioners appear to have been misled by the Government Order dated 27.11.2001 as well as the correspondence, which may have ensued between Greater Noida and the State Government. It is, however, relevant to note that in the month of October, November, 2000, when 80% compensation was paid to the petitioners under the Agreement Rules of 1997, the Greater Noida had not deposited the remaining 20% compensation. A sum of Rs. 86,22,823/- was deposited on 2.1.2001 and Rs. 28,95,50,049/- was deposited on 22.3.2001, after 80% compensation was agreed to be paid to the land owners. 17. The petitioners have accepted the compensation under an agreement and therefore they are not entitled to claim enhancement of the amount. 18. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit of Greater Noida or the State Government to show that any notice was given to the farmers or any publication was made asking them to appear and to receive the compensation under the agreement. 18. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit of Greater Noida or the State Government to show that any notice was given to the farmers or any publication was made asking them to appear and to receive the compensation under the agreement. The submission of the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that about 13 groups of farmers have accepted 20% compensation for the same village between 20.11.2002 to 26.8.2008 is not a ground on which we may deny the benefit of interest claimed by the petitioners along with the balance amount of compensation. In Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the interest under Section 34 and 28 is payable on solatium. The amount under Section 34 means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the provisions of all the sub-section of Section 23 and hence includes solatium. Section 23 (2) and 24 refers to the amount awarded ‘in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition’. The solatium is qualitatively different and cannot be acquired with damages on account of any disinclination of the person to part with the land, which under Section 24 is not to be taken into account while dispensing compensation. The question of payment of interest arises only when the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It is inequitable that person deprived of possession on acquisition of the land is not given the amount, which the law demands to be paid to him. Any delay, thereafter, would only be to his detriment. There must be a provision to buffet such enquiry. The word compensation for any property taken is understood as just equivalent of the value of the property. When compensation is statutory obligation the academic definitions should not detract the Courts in coming to real import of it. The proviso to Section 34 makes it further clear and says that if such compensation is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% from the date of expiry of period of one year. 19. We do not find anything in Section 31 (1) and Section 34 of the Act, to deny the benefit of interest on the compensation worked out on the basis of agreement. 19. We do not find anything in Section 31 (1) and Section 34 of the Act, to deny the benefit of interest on the compensation worked out on the basis of agreement. Section 31 (1) and 34 provides : “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.—(1) 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. 34. 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 until 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.]” 20. Section 31 (1) makes reference to Section 11 and does not restrict it to sub-section (1) only. 21. In Karnataka Electricity Board v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 3 SCC 141 it was held that when written agreement exists between parties concerned, grant of interest, solatium and additional amount would depend upon such agreement. The interest cannot be granted unless there is express provision in the agreement. The case dealt with the amount, which was paid immediately after the agreement and the demand of the solatium and interest for the period between notification under Section 4 (1) and the date, when the agreement was entered into. The Karnataka Electricity Board had deposited the entire agreed amount on 29.6.1996 three days after the notification under Section 6 dated 26.9.1996 was issued. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the report are quoted as follows : “11. The Karnataka Electricity Board had deposited the entire agreed amount on 29.6.1996 three days after the notification under Section 6 dated 26.9.1996 was issued. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the report are quoted as follows : “11. In our view, the learned Additional Solicitor General rightly contended that undisputedly there was a written agreement between the parties, which was produced before the LAO and the LAO was bound to pass award in accordance with the agreement. Law on this subject is settled. Granting of interest, solatium and additional amount would depend upon contract between the parties. (Re : State of Gujarat and others v. Daya Shamji Bhai and others (1995) 5 SCC 746 ; Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (1996) 4 SCC 174 ; Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak and another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. and another, (1996) 8 SCC 126 . 12. We also agree with the learned single Judge that the difference in the compensation awarded by the LAO and the agreement is not much. Further, as the appellant had agreed to pay to the claimans solatium amount to be fixed by the LAO, therefore, award granting solatium cannot be said to be, in any way, illegal or erroneous. However, as there is no specific agreement on payment of interest in the facts of the present case, the award passed by the LAO granting the same cannot be justified. Further, as the appellant had agreed to pay consideration amount at the rate of Rupees 14,250/- per gunta for 2/3rd area of the schedule property, it was not open to the LAO to award compensation for one-half area of the schedule property. 13. In this view of the matter award passed by the LAO requires to be modified accordingly. It is ordered that the claimants shall be paid compensation at the agreed rate of Rs. 14,250/- per gunta for 2/3rd area of the schedule property and not 50% thereof. As directed by the LAO, claimant also would be entitled to get 30% of solatium and on the said amount of solatium they would be entitled to have interest in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 . As directed by the LAO, claimant also would be entitled to get 30% of solatium and on the said amount of solatium they would be entitled to have interest in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 . However, the award directing that the appellant shall pay interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of issue of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation is set aside. AIR 2001 SC 3516 : 2001 AIR SCW 3692 14. The appeals stand allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs all-throughout.” 22. The petitioners are not entitled to any amount other than agreed amount, from any time prior to the date of agreement but there is nothing to prevent to apply Section 31 (1) and Section 34, if a part of the amount under agreement has not been paid for the reasons, which are not attributable to them. In this case we find that 20% compensation was not deposited by the acquiring body on the date of agreement. The parties were fully aware that full amount will not be paid on the date of agreement. They, however, did not provide for any interest in the agreement. But that should not be a ground to deprive the persons, who lost their lands, if the payment of a part of the amount was delayed for years altogether. 23. The land has been acquired for planned industrial development by the acquiring body, which did not deposit the entire amount upto 22.3.2001. No notice was given to the petitioner nor any publication was made in the newspapers to collect the amount. The reasons for which the respondents kept the amount to be paid to land owners, in revenue deposit have not been brought on record. The acceptance of 20% compensation by some of the farmers is also not a ground to believe that the petitioners themselves did not approach the respondents, or were not willing to accept the amount, as they had to ultimately resort to filing writ petitions, for making the award. 24. The acceptance of 20% compensation by some of the farmers is also not a ground to believe that the petitioners themselves did not approach the respondents, or were not willing to accept the amount, as they had to ultimately resort to filing writ petitions, for making the award. 24. Shri A. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that repeated efforts made by the petitioners for payment of balance amount of compensation was unsuccessful. The award was not declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer until this Court gave directions in Writ Petition No. 36770 of 2008, Smt. Raj Kali v. State of U.P. and thereafter in Writ Petition No. 19960 of 2009 decided on 1.5.2009. The composite award under Section 11 (1) and 11 (2) dated 9.1.2009 does not give any reasons for the delay in declaring the award. The Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar acting as Special Land Acquisition Officer has referred to the invitation of objections under Section 9 and the hearing held on 09.6.2000 and thereafter refers to several writ petitions namely Writ Petition No. 46465 of 2008 by Shri Muni Ram; Writ Petition No. 44309 of 2008 by Shri Bhim Singh; Writ Petition No. 46464 of 2008 by Shri Babu Singh; Writ Petition No. 47456 of 2008 by Shri Rajpal; Writ Petition No. 44310 of 2008 by Shri Omendra; Writ Petition No. 44307 of 2008 by Shri Prakash; Writ Petition No. 44308 of 2008 by Shri Gopi; Writ Petition No. 47458 of 2008 by Shri Kartar; Writ Petition No. 47457 of 2008 by Shri Bhulle and several others, which were decided by the High Court by its order dated 15.9.2008 to declare the award within three months. 25. Even if the agreed compensation was paid in the year 2000, the award under Section 11 (2) of the Act was not made until 9.1.2009 and thus we find that the petitioners are entitled to interest, which should be calculated at the same rate at which the interest is payable, for compulsory acquisition of land under Section 34 of the Act. 26. 26. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent that all the petitioners, who have not been paid 20% compensation, shall get 20% compensation with 9% interest from 30.10.2000 to 29.10.2001 and thereafter at the rate of 15% upto the date of this judgment i.e. 18.12.2009 within a period of one month from the date, when they apply. The interest shall be paid to them without the benefit of compounding. 27. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the cost of the writ petition. Writ Petition Decided Accordingly. ————