The court established that acquisition proceedings undertaken under repealed acts without compliance with statutory timelines are invalid, necessitating fresh proceedings under current legislation for compensation.

1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 2/authority to initiate a proceeding under Act XXX of 2013 on account of utilization of the land of the writ petitioner, particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the instant writ petition.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page No. 4 of the report as submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 4/authorities. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the said report, it would reveal that the aforementioned land of the writ petitioner was acquired by the respondents/authorities under Act II of 1948 by publication of notice under Section 4(1a) in the Gazette.

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that from Page No. 5 of the said report, it would reveal further that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of L & LR & RR & R directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Murshidabad to modify the award under Section 9(3B) of Act I of 1894 under cover of a memo dated

10.10.2017.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that from the said report, it would reveal that pursuant to the said memo dated 10.10.2017, the respondent no. 2/authority had sent a revised estimate to the tune of Rs. 47,82,615/-.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that lifetime of Act II of 1948 as already expired and with the enactment of Act XXX of 2013 which was brought into effect on January 1, 2014, the Act I of 1894 was repealed. It is thus submitted by Mr. Roy that the respondents/authorities cannot revise the estimate on the basis of a repealed Act.

7. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Roy draws attention of this Court to Section 9(3A) and (3B) of Act I of 1894. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that in terms of the provision of Section 9(3A) and (3B) of Act I of 1894, the writ petitioner was not served with any notice after publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that in terms of provisions of Section 7A of Act I of 1894, no award was made in respect of said requisition and acquisition proceeding within the period of three years and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding lapsed.

8. It is thus submitted by Mr. Roy that it is a fit case for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities for initiating an acquisition proceeding under the provisions of Act XXX of 2013 and for disbursement of adequate compensation in terms of the said Act of 2013.

9. Per contra, Mr. Batabyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/authorities at the very outset submits before this Court that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay and laches on his part in approaching this writ Court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Batabyal that from the report as submitted before this Court, it would reveal that immediately after publication of notice under Section 3 of the Act II of 1948, the possession of the land in-question was taken on 09.01.1978 and the award was published on

22.03.2017.

10. Such contention is, however, opposed by Mr. Roy by saying that the said date is tentative since such date of award is differing from Page No. 18 of the report.

11. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the