ORDER : Seeking payment of compensation with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of payment with litigation cost, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves descendants of recorded tenant assert that the land comprised in different plot numbers under Khata No. 49 at Village Hethu, Namkum, Ranchi was acquired for extension of Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi. The Land Acquisition Officer Officer issued notices dated 25.07.2011 and 26.07.2011 to the petitioners for verification and payment of compensation. It is stated that the petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and letter dated 14.05.2012 was issued to the Circle Officer, Namkum to verify the genealogy of the petitioners. After receiving report from the Circle Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 29.07.2013 found the petitioners entitled for payment of compensation however, the respondents did not release compensation to the petitioners. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector is under a duty to pay interest on the compensation amount. It is contended that for payment under Section 34, no separate order is required to be passed by the Collector. 4. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under :- 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.] 5. A perusal of the provision under Section 34 discloses that the aforesaid provision is attracted only when the compensation is neither paid nor deposited on or before possession of the land is taken over. A perusal of the provision under Section 34 discloses that the aforesaid provision is attracted only when the compensation is neither paid nor deposited on or before possession of the land is taken over. In the writ petition, the petitioners have failed to aver the date on which possession of the aforesaid land has been taken over by the respondent-State. A perusal of order dated 29.07.2013 further discloses that in L.A. Case No. 06 of 2008-09 and L.A. Case No. 09 of 2008-09 the petitioner no. 1 Gyan Prakash Topno raised a claim for compensation which was disputed by Mahabir Munda and others. The objection raised by Mahabir Munda and others was finally decided on 29.07.2013. 6. Controverting the plea taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the Incharge District Land Acquisition Officer has not been notified nor financial power has been vested in him, the petitioners have brought on record a copy of the notification dated 09.05.2014 to assert that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi has been vested with the power of District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. It is thus, apparent that on account of pendency of the L.A. cases and a disability in law, the petitioners cannot claim interest for the aforesaid periods. The claim of interest @ 18% per annum is also contrary to the provision under Section 34. On 07.12.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a part of compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners. However, neither the amount of compensation paid nor the date on which it has been paid, has been disclosed by the petitioners. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a complete Code and it has been held that liability to pay interest to the claimant arises only when the conditions under Section 34 of the Act are fulfilled. In “Delhi Development Authority vs. Mahender Singh and Another” (2009) 5 SCC 339 accepting the challenge to an order passed by the High Court directing the respondent-DDA to pay interest to the claimants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- “12. In view of what has been indicated above, the conclusion is irresistible that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34. 13. In view of what has been indicated above, the conclusion is irresistible that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34. 13. In view of the above the appeals deserve to be allowed which we direct. The impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.” 7. Considering the averments in the writ petition and in view of the judgment in “Delhi Development Authority vs. Mahender Singh and Another”, no direction can be issued to the respondents for payment of interest @ 18% from the date of award. The writ petition stands dismissed.