JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. Order impugned dated 10th March, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, and learned LA Judge at Barasat in L.R.A. Ex. Case No. 09 of 2008 rejecting the prayer for deposit and payment of interest @ 15% per annum on the awarded amount till the time of realisation of entire compensation money is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. The relevant facts are stated hereunder : On 16th November 1968 possession of the land was taken without initiation of any proceeding. Thereafter, 23rd August 1982 notification of acquisition of lands under RS plot no. 5010 and 5009 in Mouja of Krishnapur at present Bidhannagar was issued and possession was formally taken on 8th March 1982. Award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 28th September 1982. Reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was made on 23rd December 1987 and judgment and decree was passed by the L.A judge in LRA case no. 384 of 1985 by enhancing the amount of compensation. 3. 5th January 1988 one appeal being no. 232 of 1988 was preferred by the State of West Bengal in the High Court which continued for about 20 years. During pendency of first appeal a proceeding under section 6(1) of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953 was initiated on 11th January 1991 and the said proceeding was set aside finally by this court in C.O 56 (W) of 1989. 4. Thereafter, on 14th June 1997 an application in connection with the aforesaid appeal was preferred and there was a direction to deposit decreetal dues but the same was not done. On 4th August 1998 a contempt proceeding being no. 628 of 1998 and CPAN no. 1822 of 1997 in connection with the aforesaid appeal being F.A 232/98 was initiated by which the state Government official was directed to deposit the decreetal amounts within two weeks, failing which penal measure was to be taken. 5. On 19th April 2000 state Government officials preferred appeal being SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 5371-72/99 before the Hon'ble apex court and the Hon'ble apex court set aside the contempt rule and was pleased to request the Hon'ble high court to hear out the First Appeal expeditiously and dispose it of as early as possible. 6. 5. On 19th April 2000 state Government officials preferred appeal being SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 5371-72/99 before the Hon'ble apex court and the Hon'ble apex court set aside the contempt rule and was pleased to request the Hon'ble high court to hear out the First Appeal expeditiously and dispose it of as early as possible. 6. On 25th March 2008 an application being CAN 2658 of 2008 was filed by the State for acceptance of additional evidence. However, on 15th April 2008 First Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court. 7. Again another Special Leave Petition was taken out on 8th September 2008 being SLP (Civil) No. 19586 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on the same day. 8. Review petition and curative petition was also filed. Both the applications were dismissed one after another and on 26th August 2010. Thus, the last nail of the state was removed by the apex court by dismissing their curative application. 9. Since then petitioners were making prayers for releasing the awarded amount. The learned court below directed to deposit but deposit was not made. Revisional application was moved before this Hon'ble high court and the Hon'ble high court extended one weeks time to deposit the amount. Then one cheque for the amount was sent to the learned LA judge but in turn the cheque was sent to Nazir of the District Judge. In stead of making payment in favour of the petitioners in terms of subsection 1 of section 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the amount was deposited in treasury. Subsequently some strangers moved application for adding them as parties. Learned court below rejected the application. Against the rejection order they moved one revisional application and obtained ex parte interim order continued for three months which was ultimately vacated. Petitioner moved application on 18th December 2010 for making payment and the payment was made on 30th August 2013, after about three years from the date of dismissal of curative petition on 26th August 2010. Against the rejection order they moved one revisional application and obtained ex parte interim order continued for three months which was ultimately vacated. Petitioner moved application on 18th December 2010 for making payment and the payment was made on 30th August 2013, after about three years from the date of dismissal of curative petition on 26th August 2010. Petitioner moved an application under section 151 and 152 CPC for making payment of interest @ 15% per annum for the period starting from 26th November 2010 to 30th August 2013 which was rejected by the learned court below for the reasons that as per provisions under Order 21, Rule 1 sub-rule 4 of the Code the interest shall cease to run from the date of service of notice to the decree-holders. 10. Learned Court below was of the opinion that in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in case of K. Rajamouli (Supra) the omission in not granting pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or mistake and, therefore, the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has power to award pendente lite interest under Section 151 of the CPC. Learned Court below was of the further view that the ratio of Calcutta High Court judgment reported in 2011 Volume 1 CHN (Calcutta 14) is not applicable. Therefore, learned trial court held that it has got no jurisdiction for awarding further interest as prayed for by the decree holder and as such the application was rejected. 11. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it revealed from the letter of L.A. Judge, North 24 Pgs dated 29th November 2010 that one cheque bearing no. 132017 dated 25th November 2010 amounting to Rs. 11,20,33,374.00 was deposited in favour of the Special L.A. Judge, Barasat by the L.A Collector, North 24 Pgs as per order of the Hon'ble high court dated 18th November 2010 along with challan and list of decree-holders and the learned L.A. Judge sent the cheque along with challan and list of decree-holders to the Nazir, District Judges court at Barasat for depositing the same before proper Forum. 12. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the amount was deposited in treasury and the petitioner moved an application on 18th December 2010 for withdrawal of the aforementioned amount deposited with the learned 3rd court of learned Additional District Judge, Barasat. 12. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the amount was deposited in treasury and the petitioner moved an application on 18th December 2010 for withdrawal of the aforementioned amount deposited with the learned 3rd court of learned Additional District Judge, Barasat. But suddenly and surpassingly some strangers moved an application for addition of party in the Misc. case which was rejected by the learned court. Thereafter, one revisional application was moved ex parte before the high court and an ex parte stay order was obtained on 8th December 2010 which was vacated on 4th March 2011 but no payment was made. However, the amount was paid only on 30th August 2013 but no interest on the deposited money amounting to Rs. 11,20,33,374.00 was given to the decree-holders for the period starting from 26th November 2010 to 30th August 2013. 13. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the order passed by the L.A. Judge have become final. The curative application was dismissed on 26th August 2010 and in terms of sub-section 1 of section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the respondents authorities were obliged to pay the money in terms of the order passed by the learned L.A. Judge but no payment made deliberately. He submits the petitioners did not have any role to play. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that law is now well-settled that awardees or decree-holders only entitled to get the entire payment, no stranger who is not a party to the proceeding or not an awardee can claim any payment. He also submits that had the payment been made immediately after the dismissal of the curative petition, then all these problems would not have arisen. The state authorities did not discharge their obligation under section 31(1)(a). Mr. Mukherjee submits that none of the contingencies as stipulated under sub-section 2 of section 31 was available to stop payment or withholding payment. 14. Mr. Mukherjee then submits although this court on two earlier occasions sought for a report from the District Judge to know whether the deposit is a civil deposit or not but the report dated 29th July 2015 do not disclose whether the deposit is civil deposit. Mr. 14. Mr. Mukherjee then submits although this court on two earlier occasions sought for a report from the District Judge to know whether the deposit is a civil deposit or not but the report dated 29th July 2015 do not disclose whether the deposit is civil deposit. Mr. Mukherjee submits whether it is a civil deposit or not, it matters little specially when the obligation of the state authorities are to pay and/or comply with the order passed by the learned L.A. Judge which was affirmed up to the last court of the land. Under no circumstances, the state authorities could stop the payment which the petitioners being the awardees were entitled to get. Moreover, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the entire money was kept in treasury and later on the cheque was issued by the Treasury Officer. He submits that the amount was utilised by the state authorities and, therefore, they are obliged to make payment of interest. Mr. Mukherjee submits according to provisions of section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the event the amount so calculated and/or awarded is not paid, the authorities would be obliged to pay interest. However, in the present case, the learned L.A. Judge have passed an order that in case payment is not made as directed, then apart from other imposed rate of interest the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 15% per annum from 23rd August 1982 to the date of realisation of the amount. Mr. Mukherjee submits in view of such direction the authorities were obliged to pay interest form 26th November 2010 to 30th August 2013 since amount was not paid but kept with the Government and being utilised by them. 15. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners moved an application under section 151 read with section 152 CPC for a direction upon the judgment-debtor to deposit a further amount by way of 15% interest per annum on the amount deposited till the date of realisation of the entire compensation money amounting to Rs. 11,20,33,374.00 but the prayer was rejected. 16. Mr. Mukherjee submits the learned court below committed a serious mistake holding that as per Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC the court cannot pass any order of interest. Mr. 11,20,33,374.00 but the prayer was rejected. 16. Mr. Mukherjee submits the learned court below committed a serious mistake holding that as per Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC the court cannot pass any order of interest. Mr. Mukherjee submits the Hon'ble apex court in several judgments held that provisions under Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC is not applicable in land acquisition cases. 17. In case of Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors reported in (1996) 2 SCC 71 the Hon'ble apex court held that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation continues to subsist until it is paid. Relevant paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 are quoted hereunder : "13. Thus we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under section 23(1) continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into court under section 34 read with section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the civil court under section 26 over and above the compensation determined by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 subsists until it is deposited into court proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensation on appeal under section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court. The liability to pay interest ceases on the date on which the deposit into court is made with the amount of compensation so deposited. As held earlier, the computation of the interest should be calculated from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit in terms of section 34 or deposit into court in terms of section 28, as the case may be. 14. Equally, the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication, by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under section 23(1A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest. The ratio of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab has no application to the facts of this case. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under section 23(1A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest. The ratio of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab has no application to the facts of this case. Right to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct concepts. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State while its quantification may be concluded at a later stage through several hierarchical stages referred to hereinbefore. The question therein was whether the high court while enhancing the compensation would direct payment of interest on enhanced amount at 4 per cent per annum. This court held that the distinction made by the high court in payment of interest from date of taking possession till date of its judgment was incorrect. Accordingly, it directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till date of payment. 15. Equally, the contention that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium is also not warranted by express provisions under section 23 (2), i.e., "in addition to" market value, solatium was required to be paid. Section 34 or section 28, as the case may be, fastens liability to pay interest only on amount of compensation or such excess amount of compensation or part thereof determined under section 23(1). In other words, by virtue of the language of section 23(2), viz, "in addition to the market value", as provided in section 23(1), solatium becomes payable. Compensation under section 23(1), by necessary implication, excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. Equally, the question of payment of solatium on additional amount was also considered by this court in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer where it was held that no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under section 23(1A). So too, no interest is payable on additional amount under section 23(1A) on other components except on compensation or excess compensation or part thereof determined under section 23(1) over and above the award under section 11, by Civil Court under section 26 or on appeal under section 54, respectively. 16. The ratio in Meghraj case is equally inapplicable to the appropriation of debt under the Act. 16. The ratio in Meghraj case is equally inapplicable to the appropriation of debt under the Act. It is seen that by operation of section 53 of the Act, Order 21, Rule 1 being inconsistent with the express provisions contained in sections 34 and 28, stand excluded. The ratio therein, therefore, is applicable only to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary civil suit governed by the provisions of the CPC. Order 21, Rule 1 being inconsistent with the express provisions contained in sections 34 and 28 of the Act, it cannot stand extended to the cases covered by the Act. It is unfortunate that these provisions were not brought to the attention of this court when it decided Mathuni Mathai case which make all the difference. With due respect to our learned brethren who decided that case, we are, therefore, constrained to observe that Mathunni Mathai case cannot be taken to have laid down the correct law." 18. In another case "IVO Agnelo Santimano Fernandes & Ors. v. State of Goa & Anr" reported in (2011) 11 SCC 506 the Hon'ble apex court also held that in land acquisition cases Order 21, Rule 1 would have no application. Relevant paragraph 15 is quoted hereunder : "15. On the other hand, the counsel for the appellants urged that sections 28 and 34 of the Act make it abundantly clear that the interest could be paid only in court, otherwise liability on the State to pay interest would continue. As per section 53 of the Act, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 CPC could not come in the way of the contention of the appellants inasmuch as the said provision was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and thus, the bar with regard to grant of interest as provided under Order 21, Rule 1 CPC would not apply in the instant case. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on, inter alia, on the decision of this court in Prem Nath Kapur." 19. Mr. Mukherjee submits that provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 are not at all applicable. The state authorities are obliged to pay interest since they utilised the money for their benefit. He submits that the state authorities cannot get escape from making payment of interest according to the order of the learned LA judge which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble apex court. Mr. The state authorities are obliged to pay interest since they utilised the money for their benefit. He submits that the state authorities cannot get escape from making payment of interest according to the order of the learned LA judge which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble apex court. Mr. Mukherjee submits that learned court below wrongly interpreted the Hon'ble apex courts judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 2316 (K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy). He submits that the applications filed by the petitioners under section 151 and 152 CPC are maintainable. Therefore, the order impugned should be set aside and direction be given to pay interest. 20. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the state authorities submits, it is true that there was no interim order for few months after dismissal of the curative petition filed by the state authorities but later on an application was moved by some strangers and this court passed ex parte stay order on their revisional application which continued for about three months and for that reason they could not make payment. Mr. Bhattacharya submits if state authorities made a civil deposit, in that event there is no question of making payment of interest. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that account 8443 CD is maintained by Barasat Treasury-II, North 24 Pgs which is maintained for keeping the amount in civil deposit. He submits the petitioners moved an application only on 18th December 2010 and their prayer was for withdrawal of the compensation money. He also submits later on another application was moved by the petitioners for making payment of interest @ 15% per annum for the period starting from 26th November 2010 to 30th August 2013 i.e. till realisation of the awarded amount. He further submits that the learned District Judge, in compliance with the order dated 14th July 2015 passed by this Hon'ble court, communicated that it appears from the report of accountant, the cheque bearing no. 132017 dated 25th November 2010 amounting to Rs. 11,20,33,974 in respect of the case no. LRA-09/2008 was received from the learned L.A Judge (Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3rd court, North 24 Pgs. Barasat) on 2nd December 2010 to deposit the same to the State Bank of India, Barasat Branch under head 8443 CD which is maintained by the Barasat Treasury-II, North 24 Pgs. 11,20,33,974 in respect of the case no. LRA-09/2008 was received from the learned L.A Judge (Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3rd court, North 24 Pgs. Barasat) on 2nd December 2010 to deposit the same to the State Bank of India, Barasat Branch under head 8443 CD which is maintained by the Barasat Treasury-II, North 24 Pgs. Meanwhile payment order was passed by the learned LA judge and it was sent to Accounts Department of District Judges Court North 24 Pgs. Barasat for payment. On that basis bills were prepared and submitted to the Treasury Officer-II, Barasat. Nine cheques were issued by the said treasury in favour of the nine awardees as per direction of learned L.A judge. All the nine awardees have received those cheques in front of the learned advocate Smt. Rumpa Mondal, recorded lawyer and identified by Sri Partha Pratim Mondal, learned advocate. He further submits that in view of the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, petitioners are not entitled to get any order for payment of interest. He submits that the amount was deposited on 26th November 2010 which was sent to the Nazir on 29th November 2010 and thereafter payment was made on 30th August 2013. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that there were different proceedings and for those proceedings the authorities could not make payment. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that revisional application must fail. 21. In reply Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the scope of the order passed by the learned L.A judge. Learned L.A judge passed an order specifically mentioning the rate of interest which was to be paid by the state Government till the date of realisation. 22. Mr. Mukherjee reiterated that the said order has become final on dismissal of curative petition. He submits that immediately on dismissal of curative petition, the state authorities were obliged to pay but for some unknown reason, payment was withheld. It took three years time to make payment. According to him since State authorities utilised the money they are obliged to pay interest. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the revisional application be allowed. 23. Now the question arise whether the views and findings and the conclusion arrived at rejecting the prayer for allowing interest is lawful and valid. 24. So far applicability of the provisions under Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC is concerned the law is not well settled. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the revisional application be allowed. 23. Now the question arise whether the views and findings and the conclusion arrived at rejecting the prayer for allowing interest is lawful and valid. 24. So far applicability of the provisions under Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC is concerned the law is not well settled. In case of Premnath Kapoor (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation continues to subsists until it is paid to the owner. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that by operation of Section 53 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC being inconsistency between the proviso contending Section 28 and 34 of the said Act stood excluded. The same view was also reiterated in case IVO Agnelo Santimano Fernandes (Supra). In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question as to when the State would be liable to pay interest. Therefore, there cannot be any controversy in that regard and the provisions under Order 21, Rule 1 (4) CPC is not at all applicable and as such the learned Judge is wrong in his findings. There cannot be any doubt that the learned Judge wrongly applied the aforementioned provisions and came to an erroneous conclusion. 25. The liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 23 (1) continues to subsists until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into Court under Section 34 read with Section 31. Whatever may be the convention of respondents cannot be accepted since the Act requires that the interest be deposited in Court which was also upheld in Premnath Kapoors case. Since the respondents kept money in their revenue account and utilised the same the respondents would be obliged to pay interest. Allowing the State to keep the compensation with it and utilising it cannot plausibly be permitted being contrary to the provisions of the Act and the law laid down in by the last count of the land. In the present case after dismissal of curative petition the State authorities did not release the payment. The applicants/petitioners had to move Court for depositing the amount but that was also not done. In the present case after dismissal of curative petition the State authorities did not release the payment. The applicants/petitioners had to move Court for depositing the amount but that was also not done. State authorities tried to delay the payment and in fact they become successful in their efforts for withholding the amount at least after about three years and thereafter they paid and that too after rejection of their applications. Therefore, the Court cannot plead for State that they are not responsible for delay in making payment. The plea of deposit in Court is also not acceptable, specially when the amount was kept in an account maintaining by the Nazir in Government treasury from which money was utilised and hence it could not be said that it was a Court deposit either. Moreover, at the time of granting decree the learned L.A. Judge fixed the market value @ 7 per katha and allowed 30% solatium on the entire market value and interest @ 9% for one year from 23rd August, 1982 and @ 15% per annum since thereafter till the date of realisation of the amount. Since it was specific direction by the learned L.A. Judge the State authorities who are definitely responsible for non-payment would be liable to pay interest. Accordingly there would be no necessity to re-awarding interest afresh. This finding and conclusion of the learned Court below is erroneous and incorrect and also not sustainable in law. Three months time from the date of decree is fixed for payment of decreetal amount which was not obeyed by State. Moreover, learned Court below failed to appreciate the decree passed by the learned L. A. Judge since there is already an order for payment of interest @ 15% till the date of payment there is no question of read jurisdiction on that score also. Learned Judge committed serious mistake. 26. Learned Court below also did not follow the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court with regard to payment of interest referring the Apex Court decision rendered in case of K. Rajamouli (Supra). 27. In case of K. Rajamouli the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether omission in not granting pendente lite could be accidental omission or mistake and such a mistake can be corrected under Section 152 of CPC. 27. In case of K. Rajamouli the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether omission in not granting pendente lite could be accidental omission or mistake and such a mistake can be corrected under Section 152 of CPC. There the Court held that omission in not granting pendente lite interest to the decree holder by the arbitrator and Trial Court cannot be held accidental omission and such a mistake cannot be corrected under Section 152. Therefore, the facts and the issue in that case was totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case learned LA Judge himself awarded interest to be paid by the State @ 9% per annum for one year from 23rd August, 1982 and @ 15% per annum since thereafter till the date of realisation of the amount. The period and the rate of interest has already been decided by the learned LA Judge himself and accordingly the decision rendered in case of K. Rajamouli has no manner of application in this case at all. However, the ratio of the High Court judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. On that score learned Judge was totally wrong holding that the application under Section 151 and 152 CPC is not maintainable. 28. This Court is of the view that learned Court below failed to appreciate the provisions under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under which the State authorities are obliged to make payment immediately after the award is passed unless there is one or more contingencies. In the present case, it is undisputed that the curative petition filed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed on 26th August, 2010. After that date there was no contingency nor there was any impediment to make payment to petitioners. It is on record that the awarded compensation was not deposited even after the order passed by the Executing Court. State authorities took out further applications. State authorities moved revisional application before this Hon'ble high Court and the Hon'ble High Court although did not entertain the revisional application extended the date of deposit fixed by the Learned Executing Court by one week. From the relevant facts and circumstances it is not found that the petitioners/applicants were not at all responsible for non-payment of the awarded compensation to them. From the relevant facts and circumstances it is not found that the petitioners/applicants were not at all responsible for non-payment of the awarded compensation to them. Moreover the authorities who did not make the payment for their own latches, even after dismissal of curative petition are obliged to pay interest in terms of order passed by the Learned L.A. Judge and also according to the provisions under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 29. It reveals after the order passed by the High Court one cheque was sent to the learned L. A. Judge but in turn the cheque was sent to Nazir of the District Judge. Instead of making payment to the petitioners, in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount was deposited in Treasury for some unknown reasons. Although some strangers claimed and moved an application for addition of party which was rejected by the Learned lower Court moved revisional application and an interim order was obtained ex parte which remained for a period of three months only which under no circumstances, can be a plea for not releasing payment in favour of the awardees/owners who are entitled to get the payment. In fact, State authorities always avoided payment of interest which they are obliged to pay. Therefore, all arguments advanced on behalf of the State are of no substance, not acceptable and as such rejected. Thus, the other reasons also fail having no substance and as such rejected. For the aforementioned reasons this court is of the view that the order impugned passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The application under section 151 and 152 of the Code is maintainable and also allowed. 30. The state authorities are directed to pay interest as claimed by the petitioners @ 15% per annum in terms of order passed by the learned LA judge for the period starting from 26th November 2010 (the date of dismissal of the curative petition) till the date of payment i.e. 30th August 2013. Interest as directed by the learned L.A judge should be paid for the aforementioned period within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 31. The interest amount should be divided amongst nine petitioners/awardees/decree-holders and payment should be made accordingly. 32. Interest as directed by the learned L.A judge should be paid for the aforementioned period within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 31. The interest amount should be divided amongst nine petitioners/awardees/decree-holders and payment should be made accordingly. 32. The revisional application is, thus, allowed. Prayer for stay made by the state authorities is considered and rejected since they, for their own laches, delayed making payment of compensation and they are solely responsible for withholding the payment for long three years after dismissal of their curative application by the Hon'ble apex court.