ORDER : This petition is directed against order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay damages of Rs. 10 crores on account of delayed release of the amount of compensation and to allot an industrial or residential plot to him was dismissed. 2. The proceedings for the acquisition of the petitioner's land were initiated vide notification dated 11.11.1993 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'). The declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 19.4.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two awards dated 16.6.1994 and 7.6.1996 and fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1.75 lacs per acre. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, Additional District Judge, Ropar determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 6.45 lacs per acre in respect of the first award. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Act was allowed by the High Court and the amount of compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 8 lacs per acre for the entire acquired land. 3. The amount of compensation was paid to the petitioner after considerable delay and that too in compliance of the direction given by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. 4. While dealing with the second writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of the High Court noticed that the petitioner had not challenged the acquisition and was satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court and the High Court and held that it was too late for him to make a prayer for award of damages. 5. The petitioner's prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to allot an industrial or residential plot to him was also rejected by the High Court on the ground that the State Government had not framed any policy for such allotment. 6. We have heard Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at considerable length and carefully scrutinised the record. 6. We have heard Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at considerable length and carefully scrutinised the record. In our view, the detailed reasons recorded by the High Court for declining the petitioner's prayer are legally correct and the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitioner has already been compensated by award of interest in lieu of delayed payment of the amount of compensation. Therefore, the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to issue a direction to the respondents to pay damages. 7. The petitioner's prayer for allotment of an industrial or residential plot was clearly misconceived because the State Government has not framed any policy for allotment of plot to those whose land is acquired and in the absence of such policy, no direction can be given to the respondents for allotment of an industrial or residential plot to the petitioner. 8. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. SLP dismissed.