JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J. 1. These two Appeals, F.M.A.T. No. 3184 of 1988 by the State of West Bengal & Ors. and F.M.A.T. No. 2020 of 1989/F.M.A. No. 583 of 1991 by the Union of India, both against the Respondents M/s. Tandon Brothers & others, are directed against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 1988 rendered by a Learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the two writ petitions, being C.R. Nos. 13128 (W) of 1979 an 10642 (W) of 1986 by the said M/s. Tandon Brothers (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the Appellants in the said two Appeals in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein. 2. The Petitioner Tandon Brothers had filed the first Writ Petition against the State of West Bengal & Ors. for quashing the Govt. Order dated 15.12.1977 under s. 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as E.A. Act) for resuming surplus land of Rohini Tea Garden in Karseong, being Annexure "E" thereto, and had filed the second Writ Petition against the Union of India & Others for a Mandamus commanding acquisition of the land of the said Tea Garden, requisitioned for Defence purposes. The Learned Single Judge had allowed the said two Writ Petitions by the common judgment and order dated 26th August, 1988 by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated 15.12.1977, being Annexure "E" to the first Writ Petition, and by issuing Mandamus against the Union of India & Others in the second Writ Petition commanding them to take steps for acquisition of the requisitioned land of "Rohini Tea Estate" (under Military occupation) either under the Defence of India Act and Rules and/or the Act of 1952 forthwith, and also to determine compensation for acquisition as well as compensation for requisition within a period of six months from communication of the order. 3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid two Writ Petitions and the instant two Appeals may shortly be stated as follows: In or about January, 1960, the Petitioner had purchased a Tea Garden, known as "Rohini Tea Estate", in a public auction held by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta. The said Tea Estate comprised free hold and leasehold lands, the details whereof would be found in the Conveyance executed by the Vendors and the Court Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta. The said Tea Estate comprised free hold and leasehold lands, the details whereof would be found in the Conveyance executed by the Vendors and the Court Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta. The said Tea Estate had a total area of 5,042.86 acres of land, out of which 1,100 acres were under actual Tea cultivation. 4. Before registration of the Conveyance the Petitioner had approached the Board of Revenue to obtain permission for transfer, inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling, had maintained that he would not recognise any transfer without the permission of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its Memo No. 4472/EA dated 15th March, 1962 had granted permission subject to decision under s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act. The Conveyance dated 17th May, 1962 was registered on 18th June, 1962 transferring the said Tea Estate in favour of the Petitioner-M/s. Tandon Brothers. It claims itself to be the owner of the entire Tea Estate till any part thereof is lawfully acquired by the State or the Union of India or there is lawful resumption under s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act. 5. By a letter dated 22nd November, 1962 the Petitioner had informed the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal that it had no objection regarding resumption to the extent of 777.12 acres, out of 1,451.40 acres, mentioned in the Notice. But nothing happened thereafter till June, 1967. 6. After the Chinese aggression, the Army Authorities were looking for a suitable site to locate accommodation for Army Supply Crops Battalion around the area at Rohini Tea Estate, Karseong, and the State of West Bengal had forwarded a proposal to the effect that the Army Authorities may take Rohini Tea Estate for the aforementioned purpose. The Army Authorities had initially refused to accept the proposal as the Government of India was opposed to taking over any land covered by the Tea Estate for defence purposes. The State of West Bengal having given an impression that the entire Rohini Tea Estate was defunct, had persuaded the Army Authorities to have the area of Rohini Tea Estate. Upon such suggestion of the State of West Bengal, the Army Authorities had accepted the proposal; and 2532.06 acres of land was thereupon requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1962, and possession thereof was taken over on diverse dates between November, 1964 and May, 1965. Upon such suggestion of the State of West Bengal, the Army Authorities had accepted the proposal; and 2532.06 acres of land was thereupon requisitioned under the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1962, and possession thereof was taken over on diverse dates between November, 1964 and May, 1965. The said land is still under requisition. Out of 1,100 acres which was under tea cultivation, 1029 acres under actual tea cultivation was requisitioned and taken possession of by the Military Authorities. At the time of requisition there were more than 16 lacs tea bushes according to the Petitioner. The Military Authorities, however, noticed more than 7 lacs tea bushes and had assured to verify later. But the verification was not done. It is not disputed that out of 2,426.57 acres requisitioned by the Defence Authorities, 1029 acres were under actual tea cultivation at the time of requisition. The Petitioner had received recurring compensation from time to time amounting to Rs. 13.57 lakhs in all for the said requisition. 7. By a notice bearing No. 10507L dated 21st June, 1967 under s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act, the Petitioner was subsequently called upon to file objection, if any, for resumption of 1,451.40 acres of land thereof; and by an order dated 22nd August, 1967, Shri H. C. Chakraborty had ordered resumption of 1,451.40 acres of land, which was accepted by the Petitioner; which was actually surrendered and taken possession of by the State Authority. 8. Between 21st January, 1969 and 25th February, 1969 several Notices under s. 7(1) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1952") were served upon it (Petitioner) calling upon it to show cause as to why land under requisition should not be acquired permanently. In reply thereto, it had filed show-cause petition, as required under the law. And, since there was no chance of getting back the requisitioned land it had moved the appropriate Authorities for payment of compensation for the land taken over by the Military Authorities. In reply thereto, it had filed show-cause petition, as required under the law. And, since there was no chance of getting back the requisitioned land it had moved the appropriate Authorities for payment of compensation for the land taken over by the Military Authorities. But on 30.8.1968 the L.A. Collector wrote a letter intimating that payment of further compensation would be stopped until decision and communication of 6 (3) proceeding whereupon Rule [in C.R. No. 4251 (W) of 1969] was obtained by the Petitioner which was disposed of by order dated 11.4.1975 directing determination of compensation within 6 months from date of order or 6 months from the decision of C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974, whichever is later. 9. By a notice dated 26.8.1969 from the Deputy Secretary, L. & L.R., the Petitioner was thereupon asked to appear before the Darjeeling Tea Estate (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee, (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") in connection with the 6(3) proceedings, which was started in 1958, being Case No. 181 DJ of 1958-59. It (Petitioner) had moved and obtained Rule in C.R. No. 6128(W) of 1969 thereagainst, which was disposed of on 22.2.73 by directing the Respondents to dispose of the said 6(3) proceedings in accordance with law within two months from the date of the order. 10. On 6.4.73 the proceedings under s. 6(3) was disposed of after due notice and hearing according to law and the Petitioner was allowed to retain 1005.40 acres; and 3990.17 acres were resumed as vested. By a notice dated 17.04.1973 the Petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the surplus land by 19th April, 1973. And, since it had failed to comply with the said order, possession was taken on 19.04.73. 11. The Petitioner had then moved and obtained C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974 challenging, inter alia, the said two orders dated 6.04.73 and 17.4.73, which was disposed of by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.6.77 by setting aside the said two orders dated 6.4.73 and 17.4.73 and directing the Respondents therein to give it (Tondon Brothers) an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders under s. 6(3) within 6 months from the date in terms thereof for the reasons recorded therein. 12. 12. On 23.9.77 the Appellant No.2, Deputy Secretary, wrote a letter asking the Petitioner to appear before the Secretary, Land Utilisation and Land Reforms, for hearing on 1.11.1977, enclosing therewith a copy of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee dated 29.3.73, in compliance with the said direction. On 25.10.77, it had filed objection contending, inter alia, that it may be allowed to use the garden relating to the land mentioned in items 3 and 4 of the recommendation, and (b) that there is no land which may be deemed to be surplus within the meaning of the E.A. Act. The Competent Authority, after giving the Petitioner all reasonable opportunity of being heard, had passed final order according to law on 15.12.77, resuming 3990.17 acres of land in compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court. It was thereupon asked to hand over possession by a Memo dated 19.4.78. On its failure to comply therewith, possession thereof was taken on 20.4.78. 13. The Petitioner had thereupon filed the first Writ Application, being C.R. No. 13128 (W) of 1979, challenging the legality of the order bearing No. 5472 (A) REF dated December 15, 1977. The second Writ Petition, being C.R. No. 10642 (W) of 1986 was subsequently filed for the reliefs prayed for therein. 14. In the impugned judgment disposing of the said two Writ Petitions Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. had formulated 5 issue for decision, namely: (a) The Tea Estate in question held and possessed by the Writ Petitioner is still under requisition and the question is whether under such circumstances a proceeding under s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act is at all available to the State Government; (b) The question of post vesting transferee does not arise in the facts of the present case because whether the writ petitioner is a post vesting transferee or not is concluded as far as the parties are concerned by the directions contained in previous judgments; (c) Admittedly, the land measuring about 777.12 acres had been resumed by a previous order. Whether the present proceedings in such a case is in the nature of review, and if so, whether there is any material before the State Government for taking such action and/or review; (d) Whether the proceeding under s. 6(3) is bona fide and whether the State Government acted with malice; and (e) Whether there was any application of mind by the authorities concerned. 15. For answering the issues so settled, it would be convenient to deal with the law on the vesting of Tea Gardens and the right to retain the same, containing in Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the E.A. Act, 1953; which are reproduced below: Sec.4(1). "The State Government may from time to time by notification declare that with effect from the date mentioned in the notification, all estates and the rights of every intermediary in each such estate situated in any district or part of a district specified in the notification, shall vest in the State free from all incumbrances." Sec. 4(2) "The date mentioned in every such notification shall be the commencement of an agricultural year; and the notifications shall be issued so as to ensure that the whole area to which this Act extends vests in the State on or before the 1st day of Baisakh of the Bengali year 1362." Upon due publication of notification under s. 4, the estates and rights of intermediaries in the estates shall vest in the State "free from all incumbrances" on and from the date of vesting, which by s. 2(e) is defined as the date mentioned in the notification under Ss. 4 and 5(1)(a). 16. Under s. 6(1) of the Act even though the land vests free from an incumbrances from the date of vesting, intermediaries are given different kinds of right to retain in respect of different kinds of land with effect from the date of vesting. In some cases there is a ceiling limit in respect of agricultural and non-agricultural lands in khas possession and land comprised in homestead. In some other cases, there is no ceiling limit, such as Tank fisheries. 17. In some cases there is a ceiling limit in respect of agricultural and non-agricultural lands in khas possession and land comprised in homestead. In some other cases, there is no ceiling limit, such as Tank fisheries. 17. In the case of land comprised in a Tea Garden, the Intermediary cannot retain any land in excess of what in the opinion of the State Government is required for the Tea Garden, as provided by s. 6(3) which is reproduced below: "In case of land comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop the intermediary or where the land is held under a lease, the lessee shall be entitled to retain only so much of such land as, in the opinion of the State Government is required for the tea garden, mill, factory or workshop, as the case may be, and a person holding under a lease shall, for the purpose of assessment of compensation, be deemed to be an intermediary." 18. It is also provided "that if any tank fishery or any land comprised in a tea garden, orchard mill, factory or workshop was held immediately before the date of vesting under a lease, such lease shall be deemed to have been given by the State Government on the same terms and conditions as immediately before such date subject to such modification therein as the State Government may think fit to make. 19. As stated earlier, upon the issue of notification, land vests in the State with effect from the date of vesting free from all incumbrances. "Incumbrance" is defined in s. 2(h) of the E.A. Act as follows: "incumbrance" in relation to estates and rights of intermediaries therein does not include the rights of a raiyat or of an under raiyat or of a non-agricultural tenant but shall, except in the case of land allowed to be retained by an intermediary under the provisions of s. 6, include all rights or interests of whatever nature, belonging to intermediaries or other persons, which relate to lands comprised in estates or to the produce thereof." 20. In view of the provisions of Ss. 4, 5, 6 and 2(h) of the E.A. Act, the lands comprised in the Tea Garden in question had vested in the State with effect from 1st Baisakh, 1362. In view of the provisions of Ss. 4, 5, 6 and 2(h) of the E.A. Act, the lands comprised in the Tea Garden in question had vested in the State with effect from 1st Baisakh, 1362. corresponding to 15th April, 1955; by operation of law, and all rights of the Intermediary in the Tea Garden had ceased to exist from the said date of vesting, including any right of the Intermediary to retain possession or enjoy the produce of any part of the Tea Garden till the requirement of the Garden is determined, and the area so determined is allowed to be retained. It would also be pertinent to note in this context from the judgment and order dated 16.6.77 in Civil Rule No. 4171 (W) of 1974 that the lease obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner were due to expire in 1978 and 1979, and stood expired as such. 21. The Petitioner, as noted, had purchased the Tea Garden in question subject to the decision of the area which was required for the Tea Garden. And, as already noted above, before registration of the Conveyance, it had approached the Board of Revenue to obtain permission for transfer, inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling, had maintained that he would not recognise any transfer without the permission of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its Memo No. 44721 EA dated 15th March, 1962 had granted permission subject to decision under s. 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 22. Proceedings under s. 6(3) was, evidently, pending for determination of requirement of the Tea Garden since 1958, being Case No. 181 DJ of 1958-59. 23. It would also be pertinent to note that the Learned Single Judge in his judgment and Order dated 16th June, 1977 in C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974 had observed as follows : (a) After the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 came into force, the proprietor of the aforesaid tea garden under s. 6(1) (f) was entitled to retain land comprised in the said tea garden subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 6 of the said Act. (b) After issue of the Notification under s. 4 of the E.A. Act, the estates and rights of intermediaries vested in the State free from incumbrances. Section 6, however, conferred right upon the Intermediaries to retain certain lands. (b) After issue of the Notification under s. 4 of the E.A. Act, the estates and rights of intermediaries vested in the State free from incumbrances. Section 6, however, conferred right upon the Intermediaries to retain certain lands. Its predecessor, and thereafter the Petitioner, as proprietor of the tea garden was entitled to retain lands comprised in the tea garden in terms of S. 6(1)(f), read with S. 6(3) of the Act. Incidentally, the said proceedings had already commenced in the year 1958, even before the petitioner's purchase. (c) The petitioner was a post-vesting purchaser in an auction sale of the said tea garden. The petitioner's purchase was subject to the decision of the State Government regarding retention of lands which were required for the tea garden in question in terms of s. 6(1)(f), read with S. 6(3). Unless and until the State Government forms its opinion in terms of S. 6(3) of the Act and appropriate orders are made for allowing it to retain so much of the land as are required for the tea garden in terms of s. 6, it cannot claim a mature and vested right in the lands. (d) The Government by requisitioning a portion of the tea garden had compulsorily taken over possession. But unless and until the lands are permanently acquired, the ownership of the requisitioned lands still remained with the petitioner. The said interests of the petitioner were liable to vest subject to its right to retain the lands comprised in the tea garden subject to the provisions of s. 6(1)(f), read with s. 6(3). The aforesaid requisitioning law and the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act operate in different fields. There could be no question of any repugnancy between the two Acts. Further, the records indicates that originally 6(3) proceedings had commenced in the year 1958-59, before the petitioner by auction purchase became the owner of the tea garden in question. In the absence of any provision of law in this behalf, the Learned Judge was unable to hold merely by reason of requisitioning, the proceeding under S. 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act stood abated and/or terminated. In the absence of any provision of law in this behalf, the Learned Judge was unable to hold merely by reason of requisitioning, the proceeding under S. 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act stood abated and/or terminated. The Learned Single Judge had accordingly upheld the jurisdiction of the State Government to conduct proceedings under S. 6(3) of the E.A. Act, holding further that the materials on records do not establish the assertion of the Petitioner that the impugned proceedings under s. 6(3) was mala fide and was for collateral purpose. In fact, without an appropriate order allowing the Petitioner to retain lands comprised in the tea garden or portion thereof, the Petitioner at best would have an imperfect right in respect of the same. Therefore, it was imperative on the part of the State Government to conduct such proceedings under s. 6(1)(f), read with s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act. (e) Referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Kohinoor Tea Co. Ltd., the Learned Judge had held that the State Government having failed to give any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the final order under s. 6(3) had clearly violated the principles of natural justice and thereby had failed to discharge its statutory duties. He had thus directed the State Government to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in the manner indicated in the judgment and order. (f) The Petitioner either before the Land Advisory Committee or in this Court did not dispute that it had no objection regarding vesting of 1451.04 acres of land mentioned in para 3 of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee dated 29th March, 1973. Further, the Petitioner had been already allowed to retain 1000.08 acres of land in terms of paragraph 4 of the said recommendation. The Petitioner could not claim that it was aggrieved by those two portions of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. The State Government was thus required to farm its opinion whether or not 2542.29 acres of land which is under occupation of the Military Authority is required for the tea garden of the Petitioner. The State Government itself would again consider the matter and form its opinion on the said point. 24. The State Government was thus required to farm its opinion whether or not 2542.29 acres of land which is under occupation of the Military Authority is required for the tea garden of the Petitioner. The State Government itself would again consider the matter and form its opinion on the said point. 24. In view of the aforesaid decision, the scope of enquiry far the State Government was limited to the requisitioned land, which was under Military occupation, covering an area of 2542.29 acres. It would seem significant and observable to note that no appeal had been preferred by any of the parties against the aforesaid judgment and order which appears to have been accepted by them. The aforesaid paints settled therein must, therefore, be held to be paints settled between the parties once far all, operating as res-judicata, so far as they are concerned. (g) The Learned Judge had further observed in the aforesaid decision that the expression "required for the tea garden" under s. 6(3) of the Act means that the lands would be needed for tea garden, that is, there must be same element of necessity, and a mere fanciful desire or wish would not be sufficient. In the instant case, the lands remained under requisition of the military authorities. 25. It is far the State Government to farm its opinion whether in the event the lands are de-requisitioned, they will be required to be made part of the tea garden. In deciding the same the State Government might consider the conduct of the petitioner, its real intention, physical or other limitations, if any, in bringing the said lands or any part thereof under tea cultivation in the event the lands are derequisitioned in future. 26. I would, however, like to add further that the expression "required for Tea Garden" suggests that the requirement should be bona fide, obviously implying that it is honestly and genuinely required. The expression "required" plainly involves an element of need and "must have" not to be moved by consideration of preference and/or convenience. Something more than desire, other than mere wish or convenience of fancy is necessary for consideration of the question of "requirement" for the aforesaid purpose. 27. The expression "required" plainly involves an element of need and "must have" not to be moved by consideration of preference and/or convenience. Something more than desire, other than mere wish or convenience of fancy is necessary for consideration of the question of "requirement" for the aforesaid purpose. 27. It appears from the records that in terms of the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th June, 1977 in C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974, the State of West Bengal had given ample opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard in the matter. The materials on record would indicate that hearings had taken place on 14.11.77, 21.11.77 and 28.11.77 in which the Petitioner-M/s. Tandon Brothers, was represented by one Sri G. N. Tandon, who had not only made oral submissions but had also submitted written Statement before the Committee. 28. In course of hearing before the Court and before the Advisory Committee the following facts had emerged from the submissions made and materials placed, as appearing from the records : (i) Out of 1100 acres of land under tea cultivation, 1029 acres were covered by order of Requisition by which 2542.29 acres of land of the tea garden was requisitioned. And, when the Petitioner was asked to show cause against acquisition of the requisitioned land, it did not lay claim to get back the 1029 acres under tea cultivation, and had instead, moved the concerned Authority for payment of compensation. It had agreed to the acquisition, which would also be evident from its petition against the Union of India, and its letter dated 25.2.1969 to the Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeeling, on record. (ii) From its objection dated 25.10.77 in the s. 6(3) proceedings it had confined its claim to the land mentioned in items 3 and 4 of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; and had omitted to make any claim in respect of the land in items No.2 of the said recommendation, under Military occupation, making clear that it did not require the land under Military occupation for the tea garden. (iii) The Petitioner-M/s. Tandon Brothers has extremely limited experience in running a tea garden. Admittedly, it did not own any other tea garden, and did neither run the tea garden in question at all after 1964. (iv) Inspite of claim to have increased tea production, production in Rohini Tea Estate from 1960 to 1965 was an average of 119.59 Kgs. (iii) The Petitioner-M/s. Tandon Brothers has extremely limited experience in running a tea garden. Admittedly, it did not own any other tea garden, and did neither run the tea garden in question at all after 1964. (iv) Inspite of claim to have increased tea production, production in Rohini Tea Estate from 1960 to 1965 was an average of 119.59 Kgs. per acre-much less than the production of neighbouring tea estates, Skunbari Tea Estate and New Chunta Tea Estate, with an average of 685.49 Kgs. per acre, which was about 6 times Rohini's production. (v) The Memorandum dated 3.7.69 of Superintendent, Central Excise, Siliguri, and the letter dated 29.10.65 from Chairman, Teria Branch, Indian Tea Association, and the list enclosed therewith would indicate that the Rohini Tea Estate was a defunct Garden. (vi) It appears from the report of the Advisory Committee that the Petitioner had not done anything since its purchase of the Garden which can be said to be an improvement or development of the Tea Garden, except leasing out the plucking right of the tea bushes in 147 acres to neighbouring Tea Gardens. It was further reported by the Settlement Officer, Cooch Behar, that there was no manager or any managerial staff of the Garden residing in or near the Garden. (vii) The Petitioner did not dispute either before the Advisory Committee or before this Court in C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974 that it had not raised any objection to the vesting of 1451.04 acres of land, mentioned in para 3 of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee dated 29th March, 1973. 29. In terms of the direction given by this Court by order dated 16th June, 1987 in the aforesaid C.R. No. 4171 (W) of 1974, the State Government, after giving the petitioner all reasonable opportunities of being heard in the matter, appears to have formed its opinion, upon consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, that the aforesaid requisitioned lands under occupation of the Military Authority are not required by the Petitioner for the Tea Garden for the reasons recorded. And, upon perusal of the consideration of the entire materials on record and the factors which had weighed with the State Government in forming the said opinion, as indicated above, it does not seem to us that the said opinion was unjustly formed by it without proper application of mind in the matter. And, upon perusal of the consideration of the entire materials on record and the factors which had weighed with the State Government in forming the said opinion, as indicated above, it does not seem to us that the said opinion was unjustly formed by it without proper application of mind in the matter. That being so, the learned Single Judge, to our judgment, appears to have factually gone grievously wrong in allowing the relevant two writ petitions, the way he did, for the reasons recorded therein. 30. While disposing of the relevant two writ petitions the learned Single Judge appears to have formulated five points for decision. One of the said five points is whether a proceeding under s. 6(3) of E.A. Act would be competent for the State Government in view of the fact that the land under occupation of the Military Authority is still under requisition. The learned Judge appears to have answered the said point in the negative relying upon a decision of the Court in Dhone Gopal Mukherjee's case reported in AIR 1966 Cal 348 . But to that we would at once note with minute of dissent that the said decision is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant proceedings before us for the reasons we shall presently discuss. The relevant facts in the said case are that a requisition was made for accommodation of Mill workers displaced by military occupation of their place of residence. Even though the purpose of military occupation had come to an end with the end of the war, the said land was not derequisitioned. The refugees of East Bengal had thereupon squatted on the said land. The State of West Bengal, instead of evicting the refugees therefrom and restoring the land under s. 6 of the Act, 1952, had enquired of the owner if he would like to dispose of the land at the prevailing price. The owner of the land disagreeing, proceedings were taken to acquire the same under the provisions of West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, and for determining compensation payable therefor. The owner of the land disagreeing, proceedings were taken to acquire the same under the provisions of West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, and for determining compensation payable therefor. It was, in those circumstances, held in the said decision that the proceedings for acquisition under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 could not be taken by the State Government so as to assist another officer to flout his statutory obligation to derequisition and restore the land under the provisions of s. 6 of the 1952 Act when the purpose of requisition was over. In the relevant proceedings before us, it could not be said that the purpose of requisition is over. Per contra, notices appear to have been, admittedly, issued for acquisition of the requisitioned lands under occupation of the Military Authorities, giving the clearest and conclusion indication that the purpose of requisition is not over and is still continuing for which the same is sought to be acquired. The proceedings under s. 6(3) of the E.A. Act in the relevant matters before us are further by no means proceedings for acquisition under the aforesaid Act of 1948. In the relevant proceedings under s. 6 (3) of the E.A. Act it is for the State Government to form an opinion as to the requirement of the land for the purpose of the Tea Garden, which is required to be considered both in respect of the lands which have been requisitioned, as also the lands which have not been requisitioned. Such a proceeding could neither be construed to be proceedings to enable the Military Authorities concerned to evade their obligations in respect of the requisitioned land under the Act of 1952. That being so, the learned Judge seems to us to have miserably gone wrong in answering the aforesaid point in the negative, relying upon the aforesaid decision in Dhone Gopal Mukherjee's case, as he did. 31. It is further significant to note that even though the learned Judge had formulated 5 points for disposal of the relevant of two writ petitions, he has not considered all the points mooted by him. 32. Upon the premises above, the learned Judge appears to us to have erred in allowing the first Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.12.1977, being annexure "E" to the writ petition, he did. 33. 32. Upon the premises above, the learned Judge appears to us to have erred in allowing the first Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.12.1977, being annexure "E" to the writ petition, he did. 33. As regards the second Writ Petition, since the petitioner has not been allowed to retain the requisitioned land under occupation of the Military Authorities which has vested with the State by operation of law, in the circumstances discussed above, its prayer for commanding the Authorities concerned to acquire the same could hardly be entertained. The learned Judge had as well erred in allowing the second Writ Petition by issuing Mandamus, in the manner he did, in the aforesaid circumstances. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant-State of West Bengal, it is now- not a question of acquisition of the requisitioned lands under occupation of the Military Authorities, but it is a question of transferring the same by the former to the latter, in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. It had further been submitted during hearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal that it would be taking steps therefor upon results of these two appeals. 34. In view of the discussion above, the instant two appeals should clearly succeed, as they must. These two appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below be hereby set aside. The relevant two Writ Petitions being C.R. Nos. 13128(W) of 1979 and 10642(W) of 1986 be dismissed. 35. This judgment governs both the appeals, being F.M.A.T. No. 3184 of 1988 and F.M.A.T. No. 2020 of 1981/F.M.A. No. 583 of 1991. 36. A prayer for stay is made on behalf of the Respondent-M/s. Tandon Brothers which is rejected on due consideration. Suhas Chandra Sen, J.: I agree. Appeals allowed.