JUDGMENT :

Arun Mishra, J.

Aggrieved by the quashing of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") notice under section 4(1)(a) was published in the Gazette on 14.10.1996 and also notice under section 5 of the Act. The property in question had been requisitioned under the provisions of the Act by the issuance of notification under section 3(1) since requisition continued for long for 14 years. It was questioned by filing a writ petition i.e. CR 15177 (W) of 1979 disposed of on 10.9.1993. The High Court of Calcutta did not quash the notification issued under section 3(1), passed an order directing the concerned authorities to acquire the properties in question if so desired within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of order and if the authorities did not acquire the property within the time specified the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to release the property under requisition and restore possession of the same to the writ petitioner.

2. Thereafter there was some delay in initiating the land acquisition proceedings. The notification under section 4(1)(a) of the Act had been issued on 14.10.1996 for the acquisition of premises No.11, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata. Questioning the same, fresh petition - Writ Petition No.4361 (W) of 1997 was filed. Award was passed determining the compensation in a sum of Rs.7,69,950/-. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 11.3.1998. It was held by the Single Bench that in case the order dated 10.9.1993 was not complied, by the concerned authorities they would be liable for contempt of court and may be dealt with in accordance with law in the contempt proceedings, but the mere fact that possession of the property was not restored, in view of the order passed on 10.9.1993 the same would not disentitle the authority in taking steps for acquisition of the property.

3. As against dismissal of the writ petition, appeal MAT No.1165/1998 had been preferred before the Division Bench. The Division Bench has allowed the same vide impugned judgment and order. The Government of West Bengal had conveyed the property by registered deed of conveyance on 21.12.2004 to Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority for development. A Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal. It was held that requisition under section 3(1) of the Act deemed to have been lapsed, as such the acquisition was illegal. Aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority.

4. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the High Court did not quash the notification relating to requisition issued under section 3(1) of the Act, but only issued a direction that the requisition should not continue for an indefinite period. Thus either the land was to be acquired or it should have been released from the requisition. The requisition continued and a notification under section 4(1)(a) of the Act had been issued. Award has been passed. Thus the property has vested in the State Government. The order of reacquisition did not lapse. The acquisition made was lawful. The ratio of Collector of Kamrup & Ors.v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah etc. AIR 1965 SC 1301 was not attracted. The only question for consideration was the effect of the order-dated 10.9.1993. The requisition came to an end on the issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. There was no embargo created by orders of the court to exercise statutory power for the purpose of acquisition.

5. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the property had continued for a period of more than 14 years in requisition. Thus the High Court has passed an order on 10.9.1993 that the requisition was illegal and impermissible. A direction was issued to release the property in case the property was not acquired within the time specified. As the State Government h