The delay in approaching the writ Court disentitled the respondents from obtaining discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The failure of the Collector to issue notices under the Act of 1894 resulted in the lapse of the land acquisition proceedings, but the respondents were entitled to compensation for the requisitioned land.

Sankar Acharyya, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgments and order dated 9th December, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 26559(W) of 2014 (Niladri Chatterjee & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

2. The appellants before us are the State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, the Collector, Burdwan and other authorities of the State. By the impugned judgments and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing the State authorities including the Special Land Acquisition Collector to assess the land compensation in terms of the provisions contained under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013) within a certain timeframe and to communicate the same to the Requiring Body with a further direction upon the Requiring Body to release funds within 4 weeks from getting such intimation. Upon receipt of the fund, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to make payment to the writ petitioners within 2 weeks thereafter, in case there was any delay in assessing the value of the land and in making payment, the concerned authorities would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum upon the land value to be calculated from the expiry of the time limit fixed by the learned Single Judge and till the date of payment. The learned Single Judge made it clear that the writ petitioners would produce and show documents relating to the title to the concerned Collector. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

3. In the instant appeal, several grounds have been taken, which includes the following:-

"IV. FOR THAT while passing the said Judgment and Order dated 9th December 2014 the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider that there are no reasons for allowing the writ petition and for directing the Appellants to pay compensation to the Writ Petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and hence the same is violative of the principles of natural justice to be set aside.

(V) FOR THAT the on or about 21st April 1992, a notification under Section 4(1a) of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was published in order to acquire the said plots of land being No. 238, 250 and 255, J.L. No. 57, Khaitan No. 100 at Mouza - Chakpratabpur though the possession was taken over by the representatives of the Appellant No. 7 as Requiring Body on 29th April 1978.

(VI) FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge owing to non-consideration of the following facts erred in directing the Appellants to assess the Writ Petitioners/Respondents lands' value as per the provisions under the new Act of 2013:-

(a) That, the requisition of land concerned was initiated under Section 4(1A) of the Act - II, 1948.

(b) That, the Act of 1948 was repealed with effect from 1st April 1997.

(c) That, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands repealed with effect from 31st December 2013.

(d) That, under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 provides that cases initiated and alive under Act-I can only be continued and concluded. But there is no provision for converting the lapsed Act-II Case into the new Act of 2013

(VII) FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider the fact that there is no provision for concerting the lapsed Act - II case into the ambit of the new Act of 2013. Further giving current market price for the land possession of which was taken long back in the year 1978 will not be just, reasonable and appropriate. To ensure justice the value of the said plot of land may be computed as on the date of taking possession of such plot of land but awarding current market price will be a huge and unjustified burden on the State exchequer and be detrimental to the interest of the Welfare State.

(VIII) FOR THAT the Hon'ble Single Judge erred