JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. :

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th September 2016 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Paschim Midnapore in L.A. Case No. 20 of 2010.

2. Origin of the instant lis dates back to 26th November 1979, when two notices under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act II 1948) were issued and forwarded to the respondent. The said notices were in Form 1 and the respondent was required to deliver possession of the land as described in such notices on 4th December, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said notices). As would appear from the above, the plots of land were requisitioned by the State and possession thereof was taken over on 4th/5th December, 1979. Although it would be apparent from the requisition notices, that the plots of land were requisitioned for the purpose of establishing Milk Chilling Plant, yet the land was not acquired until the time hereinafter mentioned. No steps were taken by the Land Acquisition Collector to initiate any acquisition proceeding under the provisions of Act II 1948. In fact, for about two decades, no steps were taken to acquire the aforesaid land, by issuing any notice under section 4(1) of Act II 1948.

3. With the passage of time Act II 1948, which was a temporary Act was re-enacted and extended from time to time to give a fresh lease of life to the same. However, after 1997, the Act II 1948 lost its validity. By such time, however, several requisition proceedings had been initiated, acquisition in respect whereof, was either yet to commence or the same was not complete. Thus, to overcome the aforesaid incongruous situation, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was amended by West Bengal Act No. VII of 1997 and Sub-sections 3A and 3B were inserted. This enabled the state to overcome the problem of losing pending requisition proceedings, the same also afforded an opportunity to the state to acquire the same. In the present case the aforesaid requisition proceedings under Act II of 1948, were subsequently converted to an acquisition proceeding under Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act I 1894) by issuing notices under section 3A and 3B of Act I 1894.

4. Records would reveal that such acquisition proceedings did not ultimately culminate in an Award and stood lapsed. Still later, on a writ application filed by the respondent, which was registered as W.P. No. 7332 (W) of 2004, this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 10th September, 2004, having found that the land in question was utilized by the requiring body, directed that the Land Acquisition Collector to issue a notice under section 4 of Act I 1894 and to ascertain compensation within a period of three months from the date of publication of notice and after serving notices on all interested persons.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Land Acquisition case was initiated for acquisition of 2.45 acres and 0.25 acres of land respectively in Mouza Durlavgunj and Bila respectively, P.S. Garhbeta, District Paschim Midnapore, by issuing notification under section 4(1) of the Act I of 1894, publication whereof was made on 3rd November 2004.

6. Records would further reveal that in the land acquisition proceedings subsequent to publication of declaration under section 6 of Act I 1894, the same was renumbered as LA Case No 3 of 2004-05 and the L.A. Collector passed an Award on 3rd July, 2007, under section 11 of Act I of 1894. Notice of Award under Section 12(2) of Act I 1894, was duly served on the respondent.

7. The respondent had received the compensation awarded by the Collector, under protest and had thereafter by written application addressed to the Collector sought for reference of the matter, for determination of compensation by Court, in terms of section 18 of Act I 1894. On contested hearing by a judgment and decree dated 30th August, 2011 pas