ORDER : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The petitioner is a land-loser of an area measuring Ac. 2.58 decimals of land acquired for the purpose of construction of Chahaka Minor Irrigation Project in the district of Kalahandi. An award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer, Kalahandi-opposite party no. 2 under Annexure-1. In the said award, a meager amount of Rs. 72,655/-was paid to the petitioner which he accepted on protest and he filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation in respect of the present market value of land acquired. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharamgarh registered the reference under Section 18 of the Act as MJC No. 36 of 2001 and determined the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-per acre and directed the opposite party no. 2-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-L.A. Collector, Kalahandi to pay differential compensation amount to the claimant-petitioner. It was further directed that in addition to the market value, the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. Assailing the same, the opposite party no. 2 preferred an appeal before this Court, being LAA No. 51 of 2005. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide judgment dated 21.2.2008 modified the award by reducing the market value of land from Rs.1,60,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-per acre along with other statutory benefits. Pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court, the opposite party no. 2 recalculated the compensation to be paid to the petitioner as Rs.6,70,722/-(Annexure-2) after adjustment of the amount of Rs.72,655/-already paid to the claimant-petitioner and sent the same to the Government for sanction. Surprisingly, the Government in Water Resources Department vide its letter no. 3243 dated 2.2.2009 sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,56,737/-to be paid to the claimant-petitioner under Annexure-3. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the letter under Annexure-3 and a further direction to opposite parties to release the amount as per calculation sheet under Annexure-2 prepared by opposite party no. 2. 2. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no. Being aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the letter under Annexure-3 and a further direction to opposite parties to release the amount as per calculation sheet under Annexure-2 prepared by opposite party no. 2. 2. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no. 3 relying upon the guidelines prepared by Water Resources Department for calculation of compensation with regard to acquisition of land sanctioned a lesser amount than the amount calculated by opposite party no. 2. He also questioned the validity of the guidelines framed by Water Resources Department in view of the specific provisions of Sections 23 (1-A) and 28 of the Act. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bije Majhi –v-State of Orissa and another in W.P.(C) No. 425 of 2013, disposed of on 29.4.2015, wherein the guidelines issued by Water Resources Department for determination of compensation with regard to acquisition of land have been quashed. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Sunder –v-Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph-23 held as follows: “23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under S. 34 of the Act a peep into S. 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says; “On making an award under S. 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.” The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay “the compensation awarded by him” to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of S. 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from S. 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 23, including all the sub-sections thereof.” 3. Mr. It is thus clear from S. 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 23, including all the sub-sections thereof.” 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, per contra, supporting the sanction order as at Annexure-3 so far as it relates to the petitioner contended that the same is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government and is being uniformly applied to all the claimants. Therefore, no fault can be found with such guidelines. 4. After forgoing discussion, more particularly when the guidelines issued by the Government have already been quashed by this Court and taking into consideration the unambiguous statutory provisions of the Act as well as the ratio decided in the case of Sunder – v-Union of India (supra), the impugned letter under Annexure-3 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to pay interest on the redetermined market value as provided under Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act strictly in accordance with the rates mentioned therein to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, no order as to cost.