JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order dated 09.08.2019 summarizes the case of the parties as was pleaded and had arrived a stage when after payment of compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 1,13,62,900/-, petitioners also pressed their claim for interest. The order dated 09.08.2019 is extracted hereunder: Petitioners approached this Court seeking appropriate writ upon the respondents State for payment of compensation under an award prepared under Section 23 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 in Land Ceiling Case No. L.C. 1 (CH) 73-74 (State Vs. Martand Pratap Singh & Ors.) by Collector of District Palamau claiming that an amount of Rs.1,13,62,900/-is due as compensation against acquisition of 115.82 Acres of land of the land holders, but it remained unpaid. Petitioners also prayed for payment of interest on the final amount @ 18% as permissible under law. During the proceedings of this case the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,13,62,900/-was sanctioned by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms vide letter no.131 dated 19th December 2018 for payment of compensation against land acquired in Land Ceiling Case No. C.L.-1 (Chh) 73-74, Chhattarpur, Palamau under Section 23 of the L.C. Act to the petitioner and co-sharers. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau verified the relevant records regarding Draft Compensation Roll published on 23rd May 2008 in connection with the instant land ceiling case and after reviewing the objections, incorporating and correcting the raised figure, finally concluded and published Final Compensation Assessment Roll prepared under Section 23(5)(6) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 on 3rd February 2019. Soon after this, notices along with copy of the Final Compensation Assessment Roll published on 3rd February 2019 were issued upon the writ petitioners and co-parceners for account details verification. Pursuant thereto they turned up and submitted their bank accounts and family genealogical table. Petitioners were advised that there should be a separate bank account in favour of all four co-parceners. The local Circle Office was also asked to verify the family genealogical table and submit a report. Upon verification of the bank account of the petitioners and co-parceners, it was found that out of four co-parceners, only one co-parcener’s bank account was separate and three co-parceners’ bank accounts were joint. The local Circle Office was also asked to verify the family genealogical table and submit a report. Upon verification of the bank account of the petitioners and co-parceners, it was found that out of four co-parceners, only one co-parcener’s bank account was separate and three co-parceners’ bank accounts were joint. Consequently, three co-parceners namely (1) Sri Bharat Bhushan Singh (petitioner), (2) Smt. Saroj Kuanr and (3) Priyanka Kumari were noticed to submit separate bank account. After due compliance and generation of pay, their payee ID, finally treasury bills were presented in the District Treasury, Palamau for Rs.1,13,62,900/-dated 11th March 2019. Details thereof are furnished in a chart under para-5 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents dated 7th May 2019. It is the stand of the respondents-State that compensation amount after publication of final compensation assessment roll on 3rd February 2019 has been paid to the petitioners and coparceners (all four persons) in the month of March 2019 itself. Learned counsel for the State has argued that there is no delay in payment of compensation after publication of final compensation assessment roll dated 3rd February 2019. As such prayer for payment of interest upon the principal amount finally assessed on 3rd February 2019 is not legally permissible as there is no delay in payment of the amount after final compensation assessment roll was published. Learned counsel for the State has, in particular, relied upon the provisions of Section 23 Sub-Section (5), (6), (7) and (8) and also Section 24 relating to payment of compensation. He also relies upon the provisions of Section 26 which reads as under :- “26. Payment of compensation to be full discharge of liability of State Government. – (1) The payment of compensation to the land-holder or other person entitled thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder shall be a full discharge of the State Government from all liability to pay compensation for the acquisition of the surplus land and no further claim for payment of compensation in respect thereof on any ground whatsoever, shall lie. (5) Nothing in sub-Section (1) shall prejudice any right in respect of the said land which any other person may be entitled to enforce under any other law against the person to whom compensation has been paid as aforesaid.” It is submitted that payment of compensation amounts to full discharge of liability of the State Government towards the land holder or other persons entitled thereto in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Petitioners have filed supplementary rejoinder to the instant supplementary counter affidavit on 11th June 2019 taking stand that once a draft compensation assessment roll was published under Section 23(2)(1) of the Act of 1961 on 23rd May 2008 and on expiry of 30 days period seeking objections and if no objection was filed, the draft publication became final. Once it became final on 21st June 2008 after 30 days of the publication of the Draft Compensation Assessment Roll, State was liable to make payment of interest over the principal amount in terms of the Interest Act, 1978. Having been confronted with the legal position as prescribed under the Act of 1961, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for one last indulgence to come prepared. As prayed for, put up this case on 23rd August 2019”. 3. In between, petitioners filed I.A. No. 8056 of 2019 seeking addition in the prayer portion of the writ petition to the effect that a declaration be made that the date of final publication of the draft assessment roll vide Annexure 5 shall be the date after the expiry of 30 days of the draft compensation assessment roll publication i.e., on 22.06.2008 as per law. In its support averments have been made that the respondents after publication of the draft compensation roll on 23.05.2008 took more than 10 ½ years for final publication of the compensation assessment roll on 03.02.2019. Hence, petitioners are entitled to interest over the compensation amount @ 18 %. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, in particular, sub section (2). It is submitted that no sooner the period of 30 days for filing objection expires, the Collector is obliged under sub section 5 to publish the final assessment roll in the prescribed manner. It is submitted that no sooner the period of 30 days for filing objection expires, the Collector is obliged under sub section 5 to publish the final assessment roll in the prescribed manner. The statute enjoins the Collector to act in a particular manner within the time frame, which, if not adhere to, entitled the land loser to interest over the compensation awarded. Therefore, such a declaration as sought for in the instant interlocutory application be made in favour of the petitioners as the respondents should not be allowed to circumvent the provisions of law to suit their ends. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no such prescribed time limit regarding final publication of the final compensation assessment roll in Section 23 under Chapter VIII of the Act of 1961. The time limit has been prescribed in sub section 2(i) for filing of objection within 30 days from the date of publication of draft compensation assessment roll in the prescribed manner. However, section 23(4) envisages not only consideration of such objection made under sub section (2) by giving reasonable opportunity to the parties but also an opportunity to adduce evidence before passing a reasoned order thereupon. The statute also envisages hierarchy of appeals and revisions against rejection of such objection under sub section (6) of section 23, where after the draft compensation assessment roll, if needed, has to go alteration and finally published in the prescribed manner. The Legislature has consciously not prescribed any mandatory time limit for publication of the final compensation assessment roll. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court not with an allegation that the final compensation assessment roll is not being published rather with a prayer to make payment of compensation under the award prepared under Section 23 of the Act of 1961 in the land ceiling case. Since the final compensation assessment roll was published on 03.02.2019 and payments were released in terms of Section 26 of the Act of 1961 on 26.03.2019 to the respective land holders after due verification and they have also received it without any objection, such a claim for interest is not tenable in law or on facts. It is further submitted that this Court had duly take note of the submission of the petitioners on the previous date, which is encapsulated in the order dated 09.08.2019. It is further submitted that this Court had duly take note of the submission of the petitioners on the previous date, which is encapsulated in the order dated 09.08.2019. Petitioners have now sought to incorporate an additional prayer to improve upon their case as originally pleaded and to fill up the lacunae in their pleadings when law does not support such prayer. Such a prayer for amendment is therefore required to be rejected at the threshold. The claim for interest is not sustainable in the eyes of law or on facts. The compensation amount having been paid to the petitioners, no further lis survives in the instant matter. 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the respect of the claim for interest over the compensation amount received by the petitioners upon final publication of the compensation assessment roll on 03.02.2019 in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1961, specifically the provisions under chapter VIII, which deals with compensation i.e., Section 23 to 26. In order to appreciate the issue at hand, it would be proper to reproduce the provision of Section 23 hereunder: 23. Determination of compensation for land acquired by the State Government.-(1)Every person whose right, title or interest in any land is acquired or deemed to be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid compensation according to the rate specified in the Schedule. Determination of compensation for land acquired by the State Government.-(1)Every person whose right, title or interest in any land is acquired or deemed to be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid compensation according to the rate specified in the Schedule. (2) The Collector shall, after he has determined the amount of compensation in accordance with the rate specified in the Schedule, prepare a compensation assessment-roll in the prescribed manner and shall:- (i) cause it to be published in the prescribed manner for the prescribed period which shall not be less than thirty days, a draft of such roll together with, a public notice stating that the amount of compensation specified therein is the entire amount of compensation payable for all interests in the land and that subject to other provisions of this Act, the persons named therein are the only persons who are entitled thereto in the proportion stated therein and that objection, if any, in respect of any entry in the draft may, be filed by any person within thirty days of the expiry of the said prescribed period; and(ii) send by registered post, with acknowledgement due, a copy of the draft together with a copy of the notice to the persons whose names appear in the draft. (3) Separate draft compensation assessment rolls shall be prepared and published under sub-section (2) for different land-holders: Provided that it shall not be obligatory on the Collector to prepared a separate draft compensation assessment-roll for different members of an undivided Hindu family. (4) The Collector shall consider any objection which may be preferred under sub-section (2) and after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, pass such order as he thinks fit and record the reason therefore. (5) If no objection is preferred within the period specified in sub-section (2), the Collector shall cause the draft compensation assessment-roll to be finally published in the prescribed manner. (6) When such objection or an appeal or revision, if any, in regard thereto has been disposed of, the Collector shall make such alteration in the draft compensation assessment –roll as may be necessary to give effect to any order made in regard to the objection and shall cause the draft so altered to be finally published in the prescribed manner. (7) Every entry in the compensation assessment-roll finally published under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) shall, except as provided under this Act, be final and conclusive evidence- (a) of the matter referred to therein; (b) of the nature of the interest of the persons named therein; and (c) of the apportionment of the compensation among the persons claiming interest therein. (8) When a compensation assessment-roll has been finally published under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), the Collector shall within such time as may be prescribed endorse a certificate thereon, stating the date of the final publication thereof and shall date and subscribe the same with his name and official designation and such certificate shall be a conclusive proof of such publication and the date of such publication. (9) The Collector may, if he is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has been made in regard to any entry in the finally published compensation assessment roll, make necessary corrections therein and on such corrections being made the provisions of sub-sections (2), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) shall apply thereto.” 8. A bare perusal of the provisions shows the various steps prescribed there under from the stage of publication of draft compensation roll till the final publication of compensation assessment roll under sub section (5), (6) and corrections of bona fide mistakes under sub section (9). While there is a prescription of 30 days for a person to file objection to the draft compensation assessment roll published under Section 23(2), conspicuously the succeeding provisions under sub section (5) and sub section (6) do not contemplate any mandatory time limit for the Collector to publish final assessment roll in the prescribed manner. It is evident from the reading of sub section (4) that each such objection made under sub section (2) has to be dealt with after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence by passing a reasoned order. Sub section 6 provided hierarchy of appeal or revision against such order. It also imposes an obligation upon the Collector to make such alteration in the draft compensation assessment roll as may be necessary to give effect to any order made in regard to the objection and shall cause the draft so altered to be finally published in the prescribed manner. It also imposes an obligation upon the Collector to make such alteration in the draft compensation assessment roll as may be necessary to give effect to any order made in regard to the objection and shall cause the draft so altered to be finally published in the prescribed manner. The preceding sub section (5) stipulates that in case no objection is preferred within the period specified in sub section (2), the Collector shall cause the draft compensation assessment roll to be finally published in the prescribed manner. 9. It is the categorical case of the respondents that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau verified the relevant records regarding the draft compensation assessment roll in connection with the instant land ceiling case and after reviewing the objections, incorporating and correcting the raised figure, finally concluded and published final compensation assessment roll prepared under section 23(5)(6) of the Act of 1961 on 03.02.2019. Soon after this, notices along with copy of the final compensation assessment roll published on 03.02.2019 were issued upon the writ petitioners and coparceners for account details verification. Pursuant thereto they turned up and submitted their bank accounts and family genealogical table and thereafter it was verified by the local Circle Officer. After due verification and compliance, finally treasury bills were presented in the District Treasury, Palamau for Rs.1,13,62,900/-dated 11.03.2019. It is the stand of the respondent State that after publication of the final compensation assessment roll on 03.02.2019, compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners and co-parceners (all four persons) on 26.03.2019 itself. In terms of Section 26 of the Act of 1961, payment of compensation to the land holders or other persons entitled there to in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of the rules made there under shall be full discharge by the State Government from all liability to pay compensation for the acquisition of the surplus land and no further claim for payment of compensation in respect thereof on any ground whatsoever, shall lie. 10. Considered in this light, this Court is of the view that petitioners have been paid the compensation amount within a period of 1 ½ months from the publication of the final compensation assessment roll on 03.02.2019. 10. Considered in this light, this Court is of the view that petitioners have been paid the compensation amount within a period of 1 ½ months from the publication of the final compensation assessment roll on 03.02.2019. The plea now being raised by the petitioners to treat the date of publication of draft compensation assessment roll as final is not in consonance of the provisions of the act of 1961, and rather appears to be an afterthought at the fag end of the proceedings. Such a prayer for amendment cannot be allowed. As such, claim of interest over the compensation amount is not tenable in law or on facts. The admissible compensation amount has already been paid, no further lis survives in the matter. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. I.A. No. 8056 of 2019 is rejected. Other pending I.A. is closed.