As per case facts, the petitioner's land was taken by the respondent for an octroi post without initiating the acquisition process, leading to a significant delay before an acquisition award ... was made. Despite a formal possession agreement being executed years later, the petitioner had been deprived of their land's enjoyment for an extended period. A previous court directive allowed the petitioner to seek rental compensation based on state policy, but the respondent's partial payment for a limited period led to the current petition for full compensation and interest. The question arose whether the petitioner was entitled to rental compensation as per various Government Resolutions for the period possession was held before the acquisition award, considering subsequent resolutions that cancelled earlier policies or changed calculation methods, and whether the land's specific purpose affected this right. Finally, the Court held that rental compensation is payable as per the State's policy, recognizing that the entitlement stems from executive instructions, not statute. It emphasized that changes in Government Resolutions or the purpose of land use do not nullify the right to compensation for prior deprivation of land. The Court directed the respondent to calculate and pay rental compensation from the initial date of possession until the acquisition compensation was paid, based on the value of open land, along with interest.