JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Th. Sobhana, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate direction to the respondents for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 2,49,150/- (rupees two lakh forty nine thousand one hundred and fifty), with interest thereon, in terms of the observation made by this court in the earlier round of litigation. 3.1 According to the petitioners, they are the residents of Muolbem Village, Churachandpur District, Manipur. A multipurpose dam known as Khuga Dam was constructed over the Khuga River and before the completion thereof, a trial run test of the right side main canal was conducted in the last week of June, 2009 by the authority of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur. It so happened that during the course of the said trial, a portion of it was broken down in the night of June, 2009 causing extensive damages to the properties like crops, paddy fields, fishery ponds, playgrounds, homestead land, etc. of the villagers including the petitioners. When the matter was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, the respondent No. 4 measured the affected areas and worked out the approximate value of the properties damaged by the strong current from the broken side of the main canal and an estimate thereof amounting to Rs. 8,69,570/- (rupees eight lakh sixty nine thousand five hundred and seventy) was submitted to the Superintending Engineer, Khuga Project Circle, IFCD, Government of Manipur. As the high hope and expectations of the petitioners remained a far cry, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 01-02-2011 to the Commissioner(IFCD), Government of Manipur praying for payment of compensation as worked out by the Executive Engineer, IFCD and copies of the said representations were also submitted to the Hon’ble Minister, IFC, Manipur and the Chief Engineer (IFCD), Government of Manipur. Since the aforesaid authorities did not take any appropriate action, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2011 wherein an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur was filed stating therein that it had remeasured and re-assessed the damages and had rectified the estimate with appropriate rates adopted in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Fishery, Government of Manipur to Rs. 2,49,150/-. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 28-08-2014 holding inter-alia that this court was not the appropriate forum to decide the disputed question of fact and accordingly, the petitioners were directed to approach the competent court for redressal of their grievances. In the said judgment and order dated 28-08-2014, it has also been observed by this court that the damages had occurred as far back on 24-06-2009, if the petitioners were agreeable to claim such quantum of damages as determined by the State Government, the respondent authorities might pay the said amount and in that regard, the petitioners were directed to submit a detail representation to the State authorities. In compliance of the said judgment and order, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents expressing their willingness to receive the said amount of Rs. 2,49,150/-. Although the said representation was received on 28-02-2015, no appropriate action was taken by the respondents which prompted the petitioners to file the present writ petition. 3.2 The writ petition has been contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that this court while passing the said judgment and order dated 28-08-2014 had relied on the re-assessed amount of Rs. 2,49,150/- submitted by the Executive Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur and that it did not reflect the conclusion of the Committee and therefore, the petitioners demand for payment of the said amount with interest is of no merit. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners suffered loss on account of the damages caused by the trial run test of the right side of the main canal of the Khuga Dam on 24-06-2009 and the damages were duly assessed by the Executive Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur and the assessment thereof amounting to Rs. 8,69,570/- was submitted to the Superintendent Engineer, IFCD. 8,69,570/- was submitted to the Superintendent Engineer, IFCD. The writ petition being WP (C) No. 194 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners praying for release of the said amount of Rs. 8,69,570/-. Although no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government, an affidavit-in opposition was filed by the Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur stating therein that the said assessment had been revised in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Fishery, Government of Manipur and the revised amount came to be Rs. 2,49,150/-. While disposing of the said writ petition, this court was pleased to observe as under: “ However, it is also observed that considering the fact that the damages had occurred as far back on 24-06-2009, if the petitioners are agreeable to claim such quantum of damages as determined by the State Government the respondent authorities may pay the said amount. In this regard, the petitioners are directed to submit a detail representation to the State authorities. However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount so offered by the State authorities, they are at liberty to approach Civil Court to claim their compensation.” 5. The above observation of this court is unambiguous and requires no interpretation at all. It is nothing but an option made available to the petitioners to accept the revised amount provided they are agreeable to it. It has been made on the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur. It is no doubt true that no affidavit has been filed therein on behalf of the State Government but it will be too much to say that the State Government being a party in the said writ petition, was not aware of the said affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur. If the State Government was really aggrieved by the said observation, it was open to it to challenge the same by way of a writ appeal and since the State Government failed to do so, the judgment and order dated 28-08-2014 and in particular, the said observation had attained finality. The State Government has now relied upon the re-verification report dated 25-04-2014 of the Committee to contend that the estimate was not approved/sanctioned by then Superintending Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur or any other competent authority. The State Government has now relied upon the re-verification report dated 25-04-2014 of the Committee to contend that the estimate was not approved/sanctioned by then Superintending Engineer, IFCD, Government of Manipur or any other competent authority. It may be noted that said reverification report was prepared on 25-04-2014, almost four months prior to the date of judgment and order and while the said judgment and order was being dictated in the open court, the State Government did not raise any objection to the said observation being made by this court on the ground that the revised estimate had not been approved by the competent authority. Moreover, if the revised amount is not approved by the competent authority and cannot be paid to the petitioners, what is that amount reasonable according to the State Government is also not indicated in its present affidavit. It may further be noted that since the petitioners were agreeable to the amount determined as per letter dated 18-06-2011 of the Executive Engineer, IFCD and desired to exercise the option made available to them by this court, they submitted a representation dated 28-02-2015 to the Principal Secretary (IFCD), Government of Manipur as directed by this court and other concerned authorities praying for payment of the said amount of Rs. 2,49,150/-. The non-consideration of the said representation has compelled the petitioners to approach this court again by way of the instant writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent to pay the compensation and the same has been done in compliance with the judgment and order dated 28-08-2014 passed by this court. The short question that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether the prayer in the writ petition is in tune with the said observation made by this court or not. On perusal of the said observation, it is quite evident that all that the petitioners claimed in the writ petition is what has been observed and granted by this court in their favour and nothing else. The damages were assessed and revised by the officers of the State Government with no allegation of being colluded with the petitioners nor was any action taken against them by the State Government for having done the assessment. The damages were assessed and revised by the officers of the State Government with no allegation of being colluded with the petitioners nor was any action taken against them by the State Government for having done the assessment. The State Government being an institution is expected to act fairly and reasonably and having not cared and bothered to resolve the issue at all, the State Government cannot now turn around and say that even the revised amount cannot be paid to the petitioners. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the said revised amount of Rs. 2,49,150/- shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, failing which the said amount shall accrue interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the said three months till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to cost.