JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred respectively by the State and the land losers in an acquisition proceeding under the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short, “Act-II of 1948”), against the self-same judgment passed on the land losers' writ petition, being aggrieved by different portions of the said judgment.

2. The short backdrop of the case is as follows;

3. The subject-plot was requisitioned vide LA Case No.15 (Act-II) of 1987-88 by the State of West Bengal for construction of a Telephone Exchange and Tower by the Calcutta Telephones. The concerned order of requisition was passed on April 6, 1988 and possession was taken subsequently in the month of April, 1988 itself, except a 90 Sq.ft.structure.

4. Subsequently a notice of acquisition of the said plot under Section 4(1a)of Act-II of 1948, dated July 30, 1993, was published on September 27, 1993.

5. Initially a writ petition bearing WP No. 4122 of 1988 was filed against the same by the land losers, which was dismissed since an erroneous plot number was mentioned.

6. A subsequent writ petition bearing WP No. 10985(W) of 1999,also filed by the land losers, was disposed of on June 30, 1999 with a direction on the respondent-authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the restoration of possession of the land on the ground that the same stood de-requisition upon no award being passed within the time stipulated in Section 7A of Act-II of 1948 and with the expiry of the statute on March 31, 1997.

7. The Land Acquisition Collector (LA Collector), Howrah, vide order no. 6 dated September 6, 1999, directed compensation for requisition to be paid to the land loser at the rate of 6% on the market value of the plot from the date of dispossession till restoration. The requiring body was directed either to submit a fresh proposal of acquisition or initiate proposal for de-requisition by giving back possession of the plot to the land loser.

8. Subsequently on April 18, 2001 the respondent-authorities issued a notice in the appropriate proforma under Section 9 (3B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1999(hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”). The land loser filed a writ petition bearing WP No. 7845(W) of 2001 challenging such de novo notice and seeking restoration of the plot of land to the land loser. The said writ petition was allowed on January 9, 2018 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, directing the respondent-authorities to take steps under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) in respect of the subject-plot no. 690 and to award compensation under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.

9. Challenging the same, the land loser has preferred the present appeal, contending that the writ court ought to have issued a mandate for restoration and/or release of the subject-land to the writ petitioners/land losers with de-requisition compensation.

10. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the State to take necessary steps for calculation of compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act, since the proceeding was initiated under Act-II of 1948, and not under the LA Act.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the land losers argues that in view of Act-II of 1948 having expired on March 31, 1997 by operation of law, the notice of acquisition and vesting under the Act-II of 1948 automatically lapsed and the respondent-authorities are legally bound to de-requisition the subject-property and restore possession of the same in favour of the appellants.

12. It is submitted that in terms of the order of the LA Collector dated September 6, 1999 and the subsequent direction of a writ court to implement the same, the only recourse open to t