JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of an order dated 24th August, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta whereby M.A.T. No. 464 of 2011 and M.A.T. No. 279 of 2011 filed by land-owners-Aziman Bibi and others have been allowed and a common order dated 11th November, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court set aside with the direction that the compensation payable to the land-owners shall be determined by the special officer appointed for that purpose by the High Court.

2. A large extent of land, it appears, was notified for acquisition in terms of a notification dated 17th June, 1958 Under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. The acquisition was meant for the public purpose of settlement of immigrants. Among the plots notified for acquisition Under Section 4 of the Act was Plot No. 785 in which Aziman Bibi and others - Respondents in SLP(C) No. 27425-27426 of 2012 claim to own an extent of 0.11 decimal only. A declaration Under Section 6 of the Act followed on 18th December, 1958 in which Plot No. 785 was omitted from the acquisition proceedings. It is common ground that an award based on Section 6 notification was made by the Collector concerned on 21st March, 1967. Nearly two years after making of the award, the State Government appears to have realised that there was an error in the declaration issued Under Section 6, inasmuch as Plot No. 785 and two others had been erroneously omitted from the said declaration. The error was sought to be corrected by the government by issuing an errata on 12th December, 1968 by the State Government, purporting to bring back the omitted plot No. 785 for acquisition. What is significant is that despite the issue of the said errata the competent authority did not make any award or determine compensation for payment to the land-owners. Possession of Plot No. 785 and other plots, covered by the errata aforementioned, was nevertheless taken over from the land-owners on 24th November, 1980. It is not in dispute that after taking over the possession of the land, the same was utilised for the public purpose for which it had been acquired, namely, allotment to immigrants for their rehabilitation.

3. It was in the above backdrop that two writ petitions, namely, W.Ps. No. 17572 (W) of 2006 and 29102 (W) of 2008 were filed by the land-owners before the Calcutta High Court in which the land-owners inter alia prayed for a mandamus directing the Respondents - State to determine the compensation for their land and publish an award. These writ petitions were heard and disposed off by learned Single Judge of the High Court by a common order dated 11th November, 2010, with the following directions:

"In view of the above, I direct the District Magistrate and Collector, North 24 Parganas to take a decision with regard to passing award and paying compensation to the Petitioners in connection with the acquisition of the said plot of land within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order by passing a reasoned order treating these writ applications as the representation of the Petitioners and after giving opportunity of the hearing to a representative of the Petitioners.

These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly."

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge, the land-owners filed appeals which were heard and disposed off by a Division Bench of the High Court in terms of the judgment and order impugned before us.

5. The High Court, it is evident from a plain reading of the order passed by it, recorded a finding that the process of acquisition initiated by the competent authority had not been taken to its logical conclusion and that the officers concerned had derelicted their duties and caused loss to the State exchequer because of such dereliction. The High Court accordingly directed an enquiry into the lapses committed by the officers concerned and action against those responsible. Having said tha