(1) THE respondents are the owners of Premises No. 17, Convent Road, Calcutta consisting of 9 bighas, 4 cottahs, 9 chhataks, 2 sq. ft. of land together with the factory building and structures. The respondents executed a deed of lease on 29/12/1951, in favour of Westing House Saxby Fanners Limited. The lease is for a period of 30 years. The monthly rent/consideration was of a sum of Rs. 2,500.00. By efflux of time, this 30 years lease came to an end on 31/5/1981. On 23/4/1981 before the expiry of the lease, notice to vacate the premises was issued to the lessees. (2) ON 18/1/1982, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1982 came into force. Section 5 of the Act states as follows: "WITH effect from the date of commencement of the Act, lands comprising in Thika tenancy and other land held by any person in perpetuity or under registered lease for a period not less than 12 years or held in monthly or on a periodical tenancy for any land used as khatals, the rights, title of the landlord in such land shall vest in the State. " (3) WHAT happened thereafter is really interesting. On 18/8/1982, notice was issued by the First Land Acquisition Collector under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. 1948. The notice clearly stated that the property was required for a public purpose, namely, for the purpose of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for the purpose connected therewith or incidental thereto as required by the public undertakings department. (4) ON 23/9/1985, a formal order of acquisition under Section 4 of the said Act came to be passed. The legal effect of that order as could be gathered from the said Section (sic 4 is that when a notice to that effect is published, the property shall vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. (This is more or less corresponding to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, central Act 1 of 1894. (5) ON 7/4/1986. notice under Section 7 of the said Act was served upon the respondents for hearing in relation to fixation of compensation with regard to the property requisitioned. On 4/5/1987, an interim award of compensation was declared by the authority. (5) ON 7/4/1986. notice under Section 7 of the said Act was served upon the respondents for hearing in relation to fixation of compensation with regard to the property requisitioned. On 4/5/1987, an interim award of compensation was declared by the authority. 80% of the compensation awarded by the State of West Bengal was paid to one of the co-sharers (Amiya Kumar Das). It should also be noticed that the original lessee - M/s Westing House Saxby Farmers Limited had deposited the amount necessary for payment of the requisitioned compensation. It is out of this deposit, that 80% of compensation was paid to one of the co-sharers. When the matter was proceeding on these lines, strangely the respondent was visited with a notice dated 4/8/1987 purporting to be under Section 8 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. It was stated therein that by virtue of Section 5 of Thika Tenancy Act, the property in question had vested in the State as early as 18/1/1982. Challenging this notice, the respondents filed representation on 28/8/1987. The principal contention was that the land and the premises having already vested in the State on 23/9/1985 by virtue of the proceedings taken under the Requisition and Acquisition Act, there was no scope for issuing notice under the Thika Tenancy Act. However, this representation was rejected by an order dated 4/8/1987. Therefore, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 4093 of 1987 under Article 226 praying for mandamus to revoke or recall the order of vesting under Section 5 of the Thika Tenancy Act. Ultimately, the rule was made absolute on 14/1/19888. That was appealed against unsuccessfully by the Thika Tenancy Controller in Appeal No. 157 of 1988. (6) ANOTHER WP No. 341 of 1988 was filed by the respondents to release the compensation awarded in their favour under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition Act. The interim order was passed on 2/5/1988 to release 50% of the compensation. When an appeal was preferred by the State, a direction was a given by the division bench that the State will have to deposit the entire estimated compensation with the Manager of Grindlays Bank, Church Lane Branch, Calcutta. The Manager of the said Bank was directed to hold the sum of Rs. 2,44,67,990.03 as a Receiver of the Calcutta High court. The State as per the direction, deposited the amount. The Manager of the said Bank was directed to hold the sum of Rs. 2,44,67,990.03 as a Receiver of the Calcutta High court. The State as per the direction, deposited the amount. By an order dated 30/9/1988, the First Land Acquisition Collector was directed to complete the acquisition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act and to pay the compensation thereof on or before 31/3/1989. Though an application was preferred by the State for recalling this order, that request was not granted by the court. When Appeal No. 157 of 1988 was taken up for hearing by the impugned judgment, it was held that it had become infructuous in view of the above developments. (7) AGGRIEVED by the order, the present appeal has been preferred. The only argument of Mr Poki, learned Senior Counsel for the State of West Bengal is, if under the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act there is a statutory vesting of the suit premises on as early as 18/1/1982. merely because proceedings were taken under West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act. 1948 that will not in any way militate against the statutory vesting. That be so, the finding of the High court that the proceedings taken under the Thika Tenancy Act had become infructuous cannot be supported. (8) IN opposition, Shri Sen, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that if the property has statutorily vested as early as 23/9/1985 by valid proceedings under Requisition and Acquisition Act, unless and until these proceedings are rendered void by any manner known to law, there was no possibility of invoking Thika Tenancy Act. It is true statutorily under the Thika Tenancy Act, the property would vest on 18/1/1982. But this postulates valid proceedings under the Act. The proceedings of the Thika Tenancy Act in this case are not valid for the following reasons: (1 the property has already vested in the State on 23/9/1985 long before notice was issued under Thika Tenancy Act, namely, 4/8/1987: (2 this is not a land to which Thika Tenancy Act would apply as contemplated under Section 5; and (3 there is a clear bar under Section 16 which states nothing in the Act shall apply to the government land or even lands vested or in the possession of the State government. (9) THEREFORE, looked at from any point of view the notice dated 4/8/1987 has no legal basis and therefore whether the lands are vested under the Thika Tenancy Act w.e.f. 18/1/1982 statutorily does not arise. (10) WE are clearly of the opinion that here is a case where the State by some means or the other wants to deprive a citizen of his legitimate rights. As the prior narration would indicate by reason of notice under Section 4 of the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, the property had come to vest in the State of West Bengal on 23/9/1985. Not only that; much water had flowed under the bridge, compensation proceedings have gone on. There is a clear direction to pay 80% of the compensation by the court. More than above is the State has suffered a command by means of a mandamus to complete the acquisition which order had become final and binding between the parties. (11) WHAT is more surprising to us is that the Thika Tenancy Act came into force on 18/1/1982, admittedly. In other words, that Act was on the statute book. With the knowledge of that Act yet if the State chose to invoke the provisions of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, it has done so in our view designedly. Therefore, to say the statutory vesting under the Thika Tenancy Act w.e.f. 18/1/1982 would arise is an argument which we consider to be tenable (sic untenable). As rightly pointed out by Shri Sen, learned Senior Counsel, there is no provision under the Thika Tenancy Act to obliterate the valid proceedings taken under the Requisition and Acquisition Act of 1948. (12) WE need not consider whether but for the lands being acquired under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 will fall under the category of Thika Tenancy. (13) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal carries no merit whatever and stands dismissed with costs of the respondents quantified at Rs. 10,000.00. The interim order will stand vacated.