JUDGMENT: Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The petitioners, heirs of the original land owner, Magniramjibhai Kashiramjibhai Dudhrejiya, have filed this petition making two fold prayers. First is for payment of compensation of Rs. 2,59,011/-, as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, with interest for the delayed payment. Second is with respect to making a reference to the District Court, in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('the Act of 1894' for short) against such award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Petitioners have also made an alternative prayer viz. for a declaration that the acquisition of their land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act of 2013' for short). 2. Facts are as under: 3. Predecessor-in-title of the petitioners had purchased the land situated at Revenue Survey No. 220 paikee, admeasuring Acre 30-12 Gunthas, under sale deed dated 20.04.1985. Government required such land for construction of canal. Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 therefore was issued on 24.12.2001. Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 26.04.2002. Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on 15.06.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,59,011/-. In such award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer noticed that there was serious title dispute about the land. Government claimed the ownership of the land, whereas the predecessor of the petitioners claimed title to the land. Special Land Acquisition Officer therefore in the award recorded that the Mamlatdar had, by his order dated 11.06.1990, held that the land did not belong to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners but was of the ownership of the Government. He had thereupon filed appeal before the Deputy Collector, which was rejected. His further appeal was rejected by the District Collector on 13.11.1992. Upon which he had filed revision petition before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT). The Tribunal by judgment dated 01.08.1997 declared him to be the owner of the land. It is unknown whether the Government has challenged such judgment of GRT. He therefore directed that before releasing the compensation awarded in the award, inquiry shall be made regarding title of the claimants. 4. Judgment of GRT dated 01.08.1997 was not challenged by the Government for a long time. It is unknown whether the Government has challenged such judgment of GRT. He therefore directed that before releasing the compensation awarded in the award, inquiry shall be made regarding title of the claimants. 4. Judgment of GRT dated 01.08.1997 was not challenged by the Government for a long time. Finally, the Government filed Special Civil Application No. 10113/12 in the year 2012. High Court, only on the ground of gross delay in filing such petition, dismissed the same on 31.07.2012. Against such order of the High Court, the Government approached Supreme Court, however, the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed on 22.08.2014. 5. All this while, the Government did not release the compensation in favour of the petitioners, though it was already quantified by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award. It is in this regard that the petitioners have prayed for releasing the compensation with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Section 34 of the Act of 1894 and contend that statutory interest on unpaid compensation must be awarded. 6. Case of the petitioners further is that soon after the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, under an application dated 20.09.2004 Bhagirathiben Magniramjibhai, heir of the original land owner had requested for making a reference under Section 18 of Act of 1894. This application was never decided. It is in this context the second prayer of making reference arises. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record few things become immediately clear - first is that the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on 15.06.2004. In such award he computed the compensation for the land under acquisition at Rs. 2,59,011/-. He recorded that there are disputes about the ownership of the land and therefore unless and until it is duly verified such compensation should not be released in favour of the claimants. Proceedings for deciding the ownership instituted under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 resulted in favour of the petitioners by virtue of judgment of GRT dated 01.08.1997. Petitioners were declared to be the owners of the land. Proceedings for deciding the ownership instituted under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 resulted in favour of the petitioners by virtue of judgment of GRT dated 01.08.1997. Petitioners were declared to be the owners of the land. However, since it was not clear whether the Government had challenged the said order of the GRT before the High Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had put a rider that till the question of title is resolved the compensation would not be released in favour of the claimants. 8. For nearly 15 years, the Government did not challenge the judgment of GRT. It was only in the year 2012, that such petition was filed, which came to be dismissed by the High Court on the ground of gross delay and latches. Special Leave Petition against such order of the High Court also came to be dismissed. 9. Whatever be the reason, for initially and immediately not releasing the compensation for the acquired land soon after the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents cannot avoid the liability to pay the same with interest on the delayed payment of compensation. Quite apart from the principle of restitution, such liability statutorily arises under Section 34 of the Act of 1894, which provides for payment of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of the acquired land till the actual payment for the first year and thereafter @ 15%. 10. If the authority had any issue about the claim of the petitioners to receive such compensation, at least the same could have been deposited before the Reference Court under Section 31 of the Act of 1894, upon which, in terms of Section 32 of the Act of 1894, the same could have been invested by the Reference Court pending resolution of other disputes so that ultimately when the amount is paid over, the same would carry interest so accrued and the acquiring body could have been absolved of any further interest liability on the principal sum of compensation. 11. In any case none of these steps were taken. Principal sum of Rs. 2,59,011/- was paid on or around 04.02.2016, pursuant to the order of High Court dated 19.01.2016. Respondents shall therefore have to pay interest on such delayed payment under Section 34 of the Act of 1894 till such date. 12. 11. In any case none of these steps were taken. Principal sum of Rs. 2,59,011/- was paid on or around 04.02.2016, pursuant to the order of High Court dated 19.01.2016. Respondents shall therefore have to pay interest on such delayed payment under Section 34 of the Act of 1894 till such date. 12. Regarding the petitioners' application for reference, the respondents have raised some doubt about the same having been actually received by them. However, we notice that the petitioners have produced (at Annexure-F colly.-Page 71 of the compilation) a covering letter dated 20.09.2004, annexing the application for reference also of the same date. This covering letter carries the signature of advocate Shri K.C. Rana and is received by one Shri D.R. Tadvi, Junior Clerk, who has put his signature in token thereof with the date of 20.09.2004. Even the accompanying application for reference carries the counter-signature of Shri D.R. Tadvi, Junior Clerk. Even further communication dated 27.04.2007, made by the petitioners to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, carries the reference to the said application dated 20.09.2004. This later communication was sent by the petitioners by Registered Post A.D. and the acknowledgment receipt is produced on record. 13. The factual averments in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in this regard therefore need to be examined. In such affidavit it is stated, inter alia, that upon verification of the record it appears that no such reference application is found. The respondents have produced (at Annexure-R-1) a copy of the Register of the year 2004. This Register, however, is not an Inward Register maintained by the said office but is a register of having sent the applications to the Reference Court. Merely because therefore there is no reference to the application of the petitioners in this register would not mean that such application was never made. Further, because the respondents do not have full record available also would not mean that we should discard the petitioners' evidence showing that such application was in fact made at the relevant time. In any case, the delay in resolution of this dispute can solely be attributed to the respondents. We may recall that the Government took more than 15 years to challenge the judgment of GRT and till then refused to release the compensation in favour of the petitioners, even though it was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In any case, the delay in resolution of this dispute can solely be attributed to the respondents. We may recall that the Government took more than 15 years to challenge the judgment of GRT and till then refused to release the compensation in favour of the petitioners, even though it was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 14. Under the circumstances, we have no reason to discard the petitioners' evidence of having made an application of reference dated 20.09.2004. Respondents therefore shall make the reference. 15. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: "(i) Special Land Acquisition Officer shall calculate and pay interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1894 on the principal sum of compensation, awarded as per the award till the compensation was paid to the petitioners, latest by 31.05.2016; (ii) Special Land Acquisition Officer shall make a reference to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 on the application of the petitioners dated 20.09.2004, upon the petitioners presenting copy of the original application dated 20.09.2004 carrying the counter-signature of the official of the Land Acquisition Officer. This shall be done without any further delay. We are conscious that the Act of 1894 has been repealed, however, this is on the deeming position that if such application of the petitioners for reference had been disposed of at the relevant point of time, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was duty bound to make a reference to the Reference Court." 16. Disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.