requesting the authorities concerned to determine the amount towards compensation and pay the same. 10 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the land of the appellant was acquired for a public purpose, but at the same time, it was the duty of the appellant to pursue the matter further for the purpose of getting appropriate compensation determined in accordance with law. 11 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order. 12 We take notice of the fact that the Single Judge of the High Court thought fit to reject the writ petition only on the ground of delay and in appeal, the