JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

Scope of the appeals

1. Three appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the judgment and order dated July 25, 2014 passed by the learned First Court in WP 15462 (W) of 2005.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court has held that the proceedings for acquisition had lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition, 1894. The respondents in the writ petition have been restrained from interfering with the ownership or possession of the writ petitioners in respect of the land in question and from giving effect or further effect to the transfer of the land to Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).

Contentions of the State as appellant

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, a notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 was issued on April 22, 1955. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1948 had been issued on November 16, 1956. Possession in respect of the land had been taken from the land losers. Possession of such land had been made over to the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department on January 15, 1957. Award in respect of the acquisition had been published on February 12, 1968. Since the land losers did not take the amount of the award, the amount awarded had been deposited as revenue deposit on March 17, 1979. The writ petitioners had purchased 39 cottahs of land in Dag No. 395 (RS) during the period from February 1998 to March 1999 and got their names mutated with the concerned land department and Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authorities.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the land which the writ petitioners had purchased, stood vested with the State much prior to the purchase by the writ petitioners. He has contended that, once the land acquired stood vested with the State, the same cannot be divested. He has relied upon Mahadeo and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2013 (4) SCC 524 and Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , 2020 (8) SCC 129 in support of his contention.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that, since the entire acquisition proceedings had been completed, the question of applicability of Section 11A of the Act of 1894 does not arise. In any event, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay. He has relied upon Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others , 2011 (5) SCC 394 in respect of such contention.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, apportionment of the compensation payable had been made in favour of all the land losers. The learned First Court had mis-appreciated the evidence on such score.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the writ petition fil