JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. One Birendra Chandra Das, the original writ petitioner was the owner of plot Nos.229 and 240 measuring about 3.7 acres and 2.56 acres respectively in Mouza Gourcharan within P.S Matigara by purchase. After purchasing the aforesaid two plots of land by registered deed of conveyance dated 6th February, 1957 and 19th March, 1968, the original petitioner, since deceased recorded his name in the record of rights. Subsequently, the Government of West Bengal requisitioned the said plot of land with other plots of Mouza Gourcharan in accordance with the provision contained in Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 by issuing a notice date 5th May, 1990. The above named, Birendra Chandra Das with three other persons challenged the order of requisition by filing a writ petition which was registered as CO 4463(W) of 1991. During the pendency of the writ petition it was agreed by the Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority (SJDA), respondent No. 4 herein that plot No. 229 will be acquired, while plot No. 240 will be derequisitioned and released in favour of the petitioner. In view of such agreement with the petitioner and SJDA the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In order to owner the said agreement, the Chief Executive Officer SJDA informed the District Magistrate, Darjeeling on 27th July, 1994 in writing that plot No. 240 measuring about 2.65 acres shall be derequisitioned and released in favour of the petitioner. An inquiry under Section 7 of the 1948 Act was held at the behest of the District Magistrate and Collector, Darjeeling on 19th October, 1995 wherein the petitioner was called upon to be present during inquiry. Subsequently, on 30th November, 1995, the Collector, Darjeeling issued a letter in favour of the petitioner that plot No. 240 belonging to the petitioner shall be released in favour of him after taking possession from SJDA and it would be handed over to the petitioner on 11th December, 1995. However, the said letter was not given effect to either by the Collector or the SJDA. As under the instruction of the petitioner, above numbered writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the petitioner repeatedly pursued the authorities to return plot No. 240 as the respondents failed and neglected to comply with their own declaration, the petitioner is compelled to file the instant writ petition.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner bequeathed a property by executing a will in favour of the substituted petitioner, namely Manoj Kedia. The said will duly probated and the present petitioner is substituted in place of the original petitioner namely Birendra Chandra Das. Further case of the petitioner is that since final award was declared in respect of plot No. 229 and 240 beyond a period of three years as stipulated under Section 7A of Act (II) of 1948 entire acquisition process should be held to be lapsed by operation of law. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed an affidavit-in-opposition controverting the allegations made in the instant writ petition. It is stated by the respondents that the property in question along with other lands was acquired for greater public interest to establish a truck terminal. The Chief Executive Officer, SJDA submitted a proposal for derequisition of 2.65 acres of land in plot No. 240 vide memo dated 27th July, 1994. Therefore, action was taken to handover the land in question to the writ petition but subsequently it was not released considering the interest of public purpose. It is further stated by the answering respondents that amount of compensation of Rs.160539/-, 80 percent of amount of compensation towards interim payment has already been made in favour of the petitioner.

3. The respondent Nos.4 and 5, SJDA has filed a separate affidavit-in-opposition controverting the allegations made out in the writ petition. Specific case of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is that by an order of requis