The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation under the New Act, 2013 for the incomplete land acquisition proceedings and lack of compensation under the previous Act.

MIR DARA SHEKO, J.

1. The instant writ petition is filed seeking the rule of mandamus entitling the writ petitioners to get compensation award in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on account of acquisition of 3.59 acres of plot No. 43 (new number being 101) appertained to J.L. No. 371 of mouza-Betkundari belonging to the writ petitioner No. 1, and of 0.70 acres of land appertained to same J.L. number and mouja belonging to writ petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as was acquired by the State on the basis of requisition for construction of Kangsabati Reservoir Project.

2. Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that for the above purpose L.A. case No. 60 of 1982-1983 was initiated. But the petitioners received notice dated 27.04.2005 under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 by which they were asked to appear though estimate in Form 4A and proposal for placement of fund were never made till then although the Executive Engineer, Kanshabati Canals Division however wrote to the District Magistrate Paschim Medinipur for placement of fund with reference to L.A. case No. 60 of 1982-83. Further submitted that pursuant to above notice though the petitioner attended the hearing on the appointed day, but no result yielded since the requiring body could not place the fund due to intra departmental communication gap.

3. Mr. Sanyal invited my attention to the letter No. 328 dated 29.05.2014 again written by the then Executive Engineer requiring body Kangsabati canals to the District Collector seeking estimated value of land so that the irrigation department might move for placing the fund due to be deposited at the disposal of the collector. Therefore submitted that though the L.A. Case 60 of 1982-1983 was initiated on the basis of requisition of the requiring body, and although the possession of the land belonging to the petitioners having been taken over by the acquiring body for public purpose on 22.11.1983 without payment of award despite persuasion till May 2014 the writ petitioners filed the writ petitioners seeking appropriate relief in terms of prayer in the writ petition.

4. Mr. Sanyal in support of his submissions relied upon following cases:-

1. State of West Bengal v. Somesubhra De reported in (2016) 4 WBLR (Cal) 300.

2. Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2011(3) CHN (CAL) 555.

3. W.P. 11983(W) of 2010 Santosh Kumar Patra & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal (unreported).

4. MAT 1969 of 2013 The State of West Bengal v. Ganesh Samanta (unreported).

5. Mr. Sengupta learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State in the tune of their text of affidavit in opposition shortly to be called on hereafter as affidavit-in-opposition, per contra submitted that both the Act 2 of 1948 and Act I 1894 having been repealed and the rule is yet to be framed by the State Government to supplement the relief to the land losers there would be no question of divesting title or possession of the subject plot, which already got utilised for public purpose nonetheless of the fact that award was neither assessed nor published nor paid within the stipulated period prescribed under Section 7A of the Act 2 of 1948 which became inoperative on and from 01.04.1997. Submitted further that, the L.A. proceeding though was initiated under Act 2, 1948 but since it remained incomplete, the same would require completion invoking Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for which notice was issued in this case. Since, according to Mr. Sengupta there is no provision under the new Act namely, "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" (shortly to be called on as Act, 2013)" for automatic switch over of lapsed Act 2 the writ petition with its exaggerated claim is liable to be dismissed since it would not be maintainable. He relied upon the judgme