BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

1. This appeal, preferred by the State of West Bengal through its Principal Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department and the District Magistrate Collector, 24-Parganas (South), arises out of a judgment and order dated 1st March, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 13434 (W) of 2009 (M/s. Desire Agro Resorts Development Private Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). Since it is a rather short judgment, we intend to reproduce the same in its entirety, herein below:-

"Affidavit-in-reply fled [sic; read, filed] be kept on record.

On 17th February, 2016, Mr. Moitra, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners had made submissions which were recorded in order of that date as is reproduced below:-

"By relying on notification dated 1st December, 2005 being Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, he submits his clients are the owners of the schedule land mentioned in that notification. He then refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1-6 except 4 in particular sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 3 therein to point out that the case of the State was awards were declared on 11th October, 2007. He then relies on sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to submit the same commenced with effect from 1st January, 2014 and compensation had not been paid on awards admittedly made five years prior to commencement of the said Act. He submits the land acquisition proceedings therefore lapsed."

Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State today submits upon instructions that the awards were made in the year 2007 and no compensation pursuant thereto had been paid to the petitioners. Furthermore, he could not dispute that since the awards were made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013, by operation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the said Act the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

The petitioners had prayed for, inter alia, payment of compensation without which the respondents, according to them, were not entitled to take forcible possession of the lands and for restraint orders restraining the State from so doing without settling the payment of compensation. Since the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by operation of law, the petitioners are entitled to the orders of restraint prayed for in their writ petition. The respondents are restrained from taking any step or making any further attempt to carry on any work on the lands which they had sought to acquire for the purpose of development and establishment of District head office pursuant to the acquisition proceedings referred to in the writ petition that are hereby declared to have lapsed.

The writ petition is disposed of."

2. A pure question of law that arises in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') excludes the writ petitioners' right to be paid compensation under the Act of 2013, simply because a majority of land-holdings have been compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). The reason why this question arises is, according to the learned Advocate General, the proviso to section 24(2) - by its implication - makes it clear that in the event, award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land-holdings has been deposited in the accounts of the beneficiaries, then a beneficiary specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of Act of 1894 - belonging to a minority group of land-holdings - will not be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

3. The question, theref