Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent to pay 15% interest on the Award amount based on the Petitioner's representation dated 31.12.2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The National Highways Authority of India had taken up the development of the two/four laning of NH-67, Trichy to Karur from Km.135.800 to Km.218.000 under the National Highways Development Programme Phase III. In this connection, it was proposed to acquire an extent of 66,720 sq.mts of land in S.F.No.793/2 etc., of Thanthoni Village in Karur Taluk, by invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act, Act 48 of 1956. The notification under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act was approved and published in the Gazette of India and the substance of the notification was published in two dailies on 30.08.2008. According to the respondent, objections were received from the petitioners within the statutory period. The notification under Section 3D(1) was approved and published in the Gazette of India on 02.04.2009 and public notice under Section 3G(3) of National Highways Act was also published in two dailies on 08.05.2009 by the competent authority and Sub-Collector, Karur. Thereafter, the award was passed acquiring an extent of 66720 sq.mts of lands in Thanthoni Village, by proceedings dated 25.01.2010. The Competent Authority fixed the value of the dry lands at Rs.830.17 per sq.mt. Aggrieved by such fixation, the third respondent requested the competent authority to re-fix the value as per the guideline and as per the Policy Circular dated 17.06.2008. Since this request made by the third respondent was not taken into consideration, the third respondent filed a Arbitration Petition before the Arbitrator and District Collector on 25.11.2010 and the award passed by the Competent Authority was confirmed by the order dated 17.05.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred a Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.R.O.P.No.5 of 1996 before the District Court, Karur. The District Court, Karur dismissed the application by order dated 24.04.2012 on the ground that the application was time barred. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred a Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.R.O.P.No.5 of 1996 before the District Court, Karur. The District Court, Karur dismissed the application by order dated 24.04.2012 on the ground that the application was time barred. The award amount directed to be paid was Rs.1,16,58,365/-and it was paid to the petitioner by means of cheque on 29.09.2012. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that along with the petitioner, 12 others, whose lands were also acquired, filed applications for interest amount and the same was forwarded to the third respondent with a request to dispose the petition and inform the action taken. The respondent in Lr.No.1947, dated 14.03.2013 has requested the Competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur to give their opinion on the subject matter. 5. Thus, it is seen that after the conclusion of the entire proceedings, the award amount has been given to the petitioner by means of cheque dated 29.09.2012 when the fact remains that the petitioner has been dispossessed in the year 2009. 6. The question to be decided is whether the interest is liable to be paid on the said award amount? 7. According to the third respondent, the third respondent has initiated proceedings provided under the Act and after the matter reached the logical conclusion, the amount was settled and the question of payment of interest does not arise and the provisions of the Act do not provide for the same. The same stand has been taken in the counter of the second respondent. 8. The legal issue as to whether interest is liable to be paid is no longer res integra has been considered by this Court on two earlier occasions. 9. At the first instance, the issue was considered by the Honourable Justice V.Ramasubramanian and subsequently, that was followed by the Honourable Justice S.Manikumar, in the case of Mr.Abbas T.Vagh and others Vs The Competent Authority & Spl. Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur District at Kanchipuram and another, reported in 2014 (1) CWC 1 . The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “51. Dealing with the objections with reference to statutory provisions under Sections 3-G(5), 3-H(5) & (6), Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramasubramanian, at paragraph No.16, has observed as follows: 16. Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur District at Kanchipuram and another, reported in 2014 (1) CWC 1 . The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “51. Dealing with the objections with reference to statutory provisions under Sections 3-G(5), 3-H(5) & (6), Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramasubramanian, at paragraph No.16, has observed as follows: 16. However, there is a provision in Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to seek arbitration if the amount awarded by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to the parties. Under Section 3-H(5), the Competent Authority becomes liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, if on arbitration, the compensation gets enhanced. But the interest is awardable only on the excess amount (difference between the amount awarded by Arbitrator and the amount awarded by the Competent Authority) and it is payable from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit. Section 3-H(5) and 3-H(6) read as follows: (5) Where the amount determined under Section 3-G by the Arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the Arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under Section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the Arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under subsection (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the Competent Authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit. At paragraph No.18 & 19, this Court, further observed as follows: 18. In the light of the above provisions, it is clear that there is a lacunae in the National Highways Act, inasmuch as there is no provision for the Award of interest if the payment due under the Award is delayed for an unduly long period of time. Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to look into equity. The right to acquire the property is actually an infringement on the property rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to look into equity. The right to acquire the property is actually an infringement on the property rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Therefore, there must be a provision fixing a time limit for disbursing the amount of compensation awarded and there must also be a provision for payment of interest if such disbursement is delayed beyond a reasonable time. The Rules extracted in paragraph-17 above also do not throw any light on the time limit within which the Competent Authority has to disburse the amount or the interest payable if the amount is not disbursed within the time limit. 19. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the parties, in whose favour an Award was passed on 18.3.2006, should not be made to suffer, especially when the Competent Authority failed to refer the matter to the Court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. If the Competent Authority had referred the dispute under Section 3-H(4), the parties would have at least got appropriate directions for depositing the money into a Bank account and got a nominal rate of interest from 18.3.2006. Now a period of more than 11 months have passed from the date of determination of the compensation amount and the first respondent has taken a stand in paragraphs-11 and 13 of the counter-affidavit that there is actually no need for the Competent Authority to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Competent Authority should be directed to deposit the compensation amount together with simple interest at 6% p.a. from 18.3.2006 till the date of deposit and also refer the dispute under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. Ultimately, at paragraph No.20, this Court has issued the following directions. The decision in W.P.No.25649 of 2006, dated 02.03.2007 [Padmavathi v. National Highways Authority] squarely applies to the facts of this case. 52. In the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai, Vs. R.Karuppaiah and another [CMA(MD) No.650 and 651 to 680 of 2013], the competent authority and the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, passed an order under Section 3-G of the Act, determining the compensation at Rs.25.58 per sq.mt. -= Rs.1036 per cent, for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt. = Rs.435 per cent for the nanja land. He has also added 10% solatium. 53. -= Rs.1036 per cent, for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt. = Rs.435 per cent for the nanja land. He has also added 10% solatium. 53. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the landowners preferred an application before the Arbitrator / District Collector, Madurai and the said authority confirmed the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority Thereafter, the landowners filed, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, to set aside the award and prayed for enhancement of compensation. Upon assessment of the evidence adduced, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, set aside the award passed by the competent authority and passed fresh awards fixing the compensation at Rs.10,480/- per cent. The learned Judge also added 30% solatium, 12% additional solatium and 9% interest and thereafter, 15% future interest. For arriving at the market value, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, considered the evidence adduced by the landowners and also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs. Palaniappan, reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 266 and added 10% of the said amount for each year. Based on the principles laid down in Special Tahsildar (LA), Vs. Vadivel, reported in 2010 (4) MLJ 813, and 2010 (4) MLJ 461 , the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, deducted 20% towards developmental charges and added 10% on the compensation as per the National Highways Act and further awarded 9% interest per annum on the amount determined from the date of possession, till deposit. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator / District Judge, the Project Director, National Highways Authority, has filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. 54. The main ground of challenge before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of this High Court was that in view of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, the determination of compensation under the National Highways Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894, differ. Hence, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be made applicable for determining the compensation under the National Highways Act. Hence, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be made applicable for determining the compensation under the National Highways Act. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai, has also contended that the decision in Lalita and another vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 165, has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the decision of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma in T.Chakrapani & Others, Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, National Highways Department, New Delhi and 5 others, reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 193, has also been stayed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. It has also been contended that the scheme provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be made applicable to the cases arising out of National Highways Act, 1956. 55. However, perusal of the order made in CMA [MD] Nos.650, 651 to 680 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, shows that in view of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956, the landowners have conceded that they are not entitled to 30% solatium and other items of compensation. Having regard to the judgments stated supra, while confirming the liberty, granted by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, to submit a revised calculation, after the outcome of the legal proceedings stated supra, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of CMA Nos.650, 651-680 of 2013, dated 30.08.2013, has partly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai and reduced the compensation amount at Rs.12,000/-per Cent and added 10% statutory solatium, and on the amount, further added 9% interest from the date of taking possession, till the date of deposit. 10. Thus, the legal issue, which arises for consideration in this writ petition has already been decided in the above mentioned decisions, in which, the National Highways is also a party. Hence, this Court is inclined to follow the said decisions. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed, by directing the third respondent to compute the interest on the amount paid to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum for the period from 18.05.2011 to 28.09.2012 and deposit the same to the file of the second respondent, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the second respondent, shall issue appropriate orders for payment of money to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks thereafter. No costs.