1 2025:CGHC:33185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 701 of 2025 Sagirun Nisha D/o Mohammad Ishak Khan Aged About 68 Years R/o Mehadi Hassan, Ward No. 2, School Para, Odgi Naka, Baikanthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) And Land Accquisition Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. This MCC has been filed for seeking modification of the order dated 20.06.2025 in WPC No. 2965 of 2025, which was disposed of with the following direction:- “6. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No. 570/36 admeasuring 1.278 hectares has been acquired by the respondent for construction of a dam project and the award has already been passed in favour of the petitioner and there is no dispute with regard to determination of ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.17 14:49:26 +0530 2 the compensation amount of Rs. 39,73,607/-. Till date more than 03 years have passed and not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall make payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the compensation amount is not paid within a period of three months from the date of the award, the landowner becomes entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for each subsequent year until payment is actually made. In the present case, although the award was passed on 10.09.2021, the compensation amount has not been disbursed till date, thereby attracting statutory interest under the said provision. 3. He further submits that the omission of interest in the original order, though inadvertent, results in prejudice to the petitioner who has been deprived of both possession of his land and the compensation legally due to him for over three years. The petitioner is entitled not just to the principal amount but also to the interest for the delayed payment, which forms an inseparable component of “just compensation” under the Scheme of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that there is no need of interference or modification in the order so passed by this Court. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Major grievance of the petitioner with regard to the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2965 of 2025 vide order dated 20.06.2025 is that no direction has been given in the order with regard to the interest to be paid by the respondent authorities to the petitioner as per Section 80 of the The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013. 7. However, on bare perusal of the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2965 of 2025 vide order dated 20.06.2025, this Court finds that direction was given to the respondent authorities to make payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order so passed by this Court has been made after keeping in mind all the aspects of the matter and after due perusal of the record available, a cogent and justifiable order has been passed which deserves no modification. 9. Hence the instant MCC for modification, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10.Accordingly this MCC is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza