JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 24.7.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C ) No. 5580 of 2002. 2. Admittedly, Sal Trees on the land belonging to the petitioner were cut without permission of the respondent authorities on 18.04.1995. The same were seized and a criminal case was registered under sections 406, 379 of the IPC and section 21(a) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 making the allegations that the trees were cut without permission of the authorities. 3. During the pendency of the criminal case, it appears that the wood which was in the custody of the State had been misappropriated by the police and could not be traced. Ultimately, the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner and his father. 4. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 for release of the wood which was disposed of on 18.6.2002 holding that the petitioner was entitled to get the value of the wood at the rate prevailing on the date when the articles were seized and the Judicial Magistrate, Gumla was directed to assess the value of the seized articles after hearing both parties. 5. The said Magistrate then referred the matter to respondent 4 who assessed the value of the seized wood and submitted a report to the Judicial Magistrate, Gumla on 22.7.2002 after determining the value to be Rs. 38,293.05/-. 6. Petitioner then filed the instant writ petition contending that the value of the seized articles as assessed by the Magistrate is not correct and that its value as assessed by the respondent 4 during the pendency of the writ petition to be Rs. 13,19,966/- is also low and the petitioner should get the current market value of Rs. 55 to 60 Lakhs. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is entitled to the value of the wood only at the rate prevalent at the time of seizure i.e. Rs. 13,19,966/- after deducting Rs. 38,293/- already paid to the petitioner on 3.11.2003. 7. 13,19,966/- is also low and the petitioner should get the current market value of Rs. 55 to 60 Lakhs. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is entitled to the value of the wood only at the rate prevalent at the time of seizure i.e. Rs. 13,19,966/- after deducting Rs. 38,293/- already paid to the petitioner on 3.11.2003. 7. Though the counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the learned Single Judge should have allowed to the petitioner, value of the seized wood at current rates, we are unable to accept the said contention for the reason that the loss occurred to the petitioner on the date of the wrongful seizure, and if the petitioner had sold the said wood at that time it would not have realized the value which it would fetch today. At best, petitioner can claim interest for the delay in payment of the value of the wood, but not the current value of the wood. 8. In this view of the matter, the order dt. 24.7.2023 in WP(C ) No. 5580 of 2002 of the learned Single Judge is modified directing the respondents to pay Rs. 12,81,673/- (if not already paid) along with interest to the petitioner @ 7% per annum on Rs. 12,81,673/- from 17.3.1995 till the date of actual payment and @ 7% per annum on Rs. 38,293/- from 17.3.1995 till 3.11.2003. The said amount shall be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents. 9. This appeal stands disposed of. 10. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stand disposed of.