ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Though, strictly speaking, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 having lost in the civil suit which was filed on the basis of title for permanent injunction, since the suit was dismissed as not pressed, they were not entitled for any further indulgence by the High Court. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no question of returning the land by the railways. By now, several events have taken place. The possession is that of the railways over the land. In the meantime, proceedings under urban land ceiling had already taken place in which, certain area had been declared as surplus. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we consider it appropriate that as the land was handed over with consent to railways by Mrs. Khadri Bee, only reserving claim for payment of interest on compensation with effect from taking possession, it would be appropriate to direct payment of compensation only. No further acquisition proceedings are required. As a matter of fact, the writ petition which was filed was a misconceived venture. However, in order to do complete justice between the parties and also to ensure that compensation is paid to the owner, we direct under our inherent powers that let the compensation be paid, to be determined, as on the date on which the possession had been taken over in 1973 from the owners. There appears to be dispute as to the ownership and as to who is entitled to receive compensation. That aspect shall also be looked into by the respondent No. 1 while determining compensation. And if any rival claims are there, obviously, that question will also be gone into by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and decided. The amount of compensation shall be paid along with statutory benefits which were available at the relevant time. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the compensation should be paid as of the rate as on today and further it was urged that appellant should be permitted to file fresh suit for recovery of possession. Both the submissions are not only misconceived but untenable. After having lost in suit for permanent injunction which was based on title, the same was dismissed as not pressed. Both the submissions are not only misconceived but untenable. After having lost in suit for permanent injunction which was based on title, the same was dismissed as not pressed. Though counsel contended it was dismissed as withdrawn. A perusal of order indicate it was prayed that suit was to be withdrawn, no liberty was reserved to file fresh suit on same cause of action. Thus, as a matter of fact, after having withdrawn the suit, the petitioner would not be entitled to file fresh suit. The writ petition was clearly untenable. This order we have passed on the equitable ground, that too by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The same is not to be treated as a precedent in any other case and in our considered opinion, as possession had been taken with consent in 1973 and the terms of consent indicated that the interest would be paid from the date of taking over the possession by the railways. That is why we have passed the aforesaid order. This order not to be treated as precedent. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly. No costs.