JUDGMENT : M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dt. 28.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5126 of 2017. The appellant had filed the said Writ Petition for the following reliefs: “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction direction/ directions directing the respondents particularly respondent no.2 to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.45,45,690/- for acquiring the land of the petitioner for widening of National Highway no.2 (from Barwadda to Aurangabad section) and the aforesaid amount of compensation has been deposited by the Central Government for acquisition of the land of the petitioner and notice to this effect was issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 659 dated 24.5.2016 under section 3 (H) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 i.e. at Annexure- 4 of the writ petition whereby and where under the petitioner was directed to file some documents mentioned in that notice for getting amount of compensation of Rs.45,45,690/- by 30.5.2016 and as per notice dated 24.5.2016 the petitioner has filed all relevant documents mentioned in that notice before the District Land Acquisition Officer cum- competent Authority (N.H. Act) much before i.e. 5.8.2015 along with the list and the petitioner had given reference of that letter in his application before District Land Acquisition Officer cum- competent Authority on 30.5.2016 and had made request to give amount of compensation to the petitioner awarded for acquisition of the land of the petitioner; FURTHER direction may be issued to the respondents to give amount of interest on the compensation amount which was awarded to him vide notice dated 24.5.2016 forthwith as the respondents in spite of repeated request made by the petitioner has not as yet paid the amount of compensation to the petitioner, though the amount of compensation of the land acquired for the same purpose by the respondents i.e. National Highway Authority of India has been paid to brothers of the petitioner immediately and the compensation amount of the petitioner has been withheld without any rhyme and reason by the respondents; AND To Pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2. It is not in dispute that through a notification dt. It is not in dispute that through a notification dt. 17.04.2015 issued under Section 3 Sub Section (ii) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 the land of the appellant was acquired along with other lands for the purpose of road widening of a National Highway. A notice under Section 3(a) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 to appear on 30.05.2016 was issued asking the appellant to deliver possession of the land in 60 days. On 24.05.2016, Annexure-4 notice was issued to the appellant stating that compensation of Rs.45,45,690/- has been determined for the land of the appellant which has been acquired and he was asked to come and receive the amount. 3. But admittedly the said amount was not paid to the appellant as can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the State Government (respondent No.1) before the learned Single Judge wherein it has been asserted in para 6 thereof that the payment of compensation was not made to the appellant on the ground that there was collusion between the appellant and the registered valuer, and that there was a process of reassessment and re-valuation of the actual structure, which was not done and that was why payment was not made to him. 4. Admittedly, during the pendency of the Writ Petition the said amount was paid to the appellant on 06.09.2024 as stated by the learned Single Judge in para 4 and the issue which remained to be determined in the Writ Petition was as to the liability of the respondents for payment of interest under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which applies to even acquisition under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956. 5. 5. Admittedly, the said provision states that if 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 9% per annum from the time of taking of possession until it is paid or deposited, and if the said compensation is not paid fully or partly or not deposited within a period of one year from the date of possession, interest at the rate of 15% per annum is payable from the date of expiry of the 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. 6. In view of the notice issued to the petitioner vide Anneuxre-3 that he shall deliver possession within 60 days from the said notice dt. 24.05.2016 it has to be presumed that the appellant did deliver possession by 24.07.2016. 7. Since compensation was not paid to the petitioner till 06.09.2024 after the filing of the Writ Petition, the appellant is certainly entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period from 24.07.2016 to 23.07.2017 and for the period from 24.07.2017 till 21.09.2024 (on which date he received the compensation) with interest at the rate of 15 % per annum for the said period. 8. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in stating that the date of dispossession and the date of deposit of compensation are not clear from the records of the case. The learned Single Judge has overlooked the pleading of the 2 nd respondent that the compensation was never paid to the petitioner and she has also not taken note of Annexure 3 dt. 24.05.2016 and proceeded under a misconception that the date of dispossession is not known and the date of deposit is also not known. The learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of Section 3(e) of the Act which directs the competent authority to issue a notice to the owner such as the appellant to surrender or deliver possession, and Annexure-3 notice which is such a notice issued under the said provision. The learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of Section 3(e) of the Act which directs the competent authority to issue a notice to the owner such as the appellant to surrender or deliver possession, and Annexure-3 notice which is such a notice issued under the said provision. When it is specific stand of the respondent that they never paid the compensation determined because of the suspected connivance of the appellant with the valuer, the learned Single Judge ought not to have relied on the deposit of the amount of compensation in the bank account of the Principal District Judge-cum- competent authority of the District Land Acquisition Officer through RTGS on 02.07.2020. 9. Though counsel for the respondents sought to contend that the appellant had refused to receive the compensation there is no material placed on record by the respondents to prove any refusal of the appellant to receive the compensation which was admittedly not even offered to him to be paid. 10. In this view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 28.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 5126 of 2017 is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 45,45,690/- for the period 24.07.2016 to 23.07.2017, and interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount for the period 24.07.2017 to 21.09.2024. The said payment shall be made by both the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The respondents shall also pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each to the appellant.