Judgment The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to withdrew and/or cancel and/or rescind the order. If any passed under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. (b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued for restraining the opposite parties from giving any affect or further effect to the said order, if any passed, under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 and interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land being Annexure 'B' to the petition." 2. Admitted fact of the matter is as follows:- On 21.4.67 the petitioner purchased plot No. 1789 in Monza-Mmnoharpur. From the affidavit in opposition filed by the State/respondents, it appears that immediately after purchase the petitioner mortgaged the property in favour of his predecessors-in-interest, namely, Hariram Sardar and Balaram Sardar and the possession remained with them. Allegedly, on 7.1.82 pursuant to notification dated 2.1.82 issued under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 profession had been taken. It is further the case of the respondents that only in the year 1983 the petitioner obtained possession of the land in question presumably after the mortgage was redeemed. The petitioner applied for mutation on 17.4.84 and it appears from Annexure 'B' to the writ petition that a parcha had been issued in his name in respect of the plot in question on or about 10.12 85. The respondent, in their affidavit-in-opposition have also admitted that although in the original record of rights which was finally published in the year 1958 names of the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest, Harirem and Balaram appear, in the revisional settlement record of rights name or the petitioner appears at the attestation stage and an entry had been made therein that be had purchased the land by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 25.4.67 being Deed No. 2080, although the land in question had been requisitioned for the West Bengal Housing Board. 3. The petitioner filed this writ application on 20.5.86. 3. The petitioner filed this writ application on 20.5.86. It appears from the records that a notice had been issued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the Land Acquisition Officer about filing of the writ application on or about 22.5.86, and from the order sheet No. 72 dated 4.6.86 it appears that receipt of the said notice had been recorded and the L.R. was requested to engage a State Advocate to contest the case. An information was also requested to be sent to the requisitioning authority. A public notice under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Act II was directed to be displayed at a convenient place on 19.11.86 and a notice under subsection (3) of Section 5 of the said Act was issued on 25.11.86. From the records, it appears that on 25.2.87, an award of compensation was served on the erstwhile owner of the land, Hariram and Balaram. Admittedly when the writ application was filed, an interim order of status quo as regards possession of the parties was passed. According to the respondents themselves they did not suffer any prejudice by reason of the said order, as they had been in possession of the land in question, in terms of the possession certificate issued hi their favour, pursuant to the notice requisitioning the lands. 4. This writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 7.7.97, when it was allowed keeping in view the statements made in the writ application to the effect that no award has been made, and in the meantime, Act-II of 1948 underwent amendment by West Bengal Act XIV of 1994, being West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1994, whereby and whereunder Section 3 was amended to the following effect:- 3. Omission of Section 3-Section 3 of the principal Act (hereinafter referred to as the said section) shall be omitted with effect from the 1st day of April, 1994:- Provided that such omission shall not – (a) affect the previous operation of the said section so omitted or anything duly done or suffered thereunder, or (b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said section so omitted, or (c) affect any inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or remedy, in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid. and any such inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the said section had not been so omitted:- Provided further that any reference to the said section in any other provision of the principal Act shall be construed as a reference to the said section as if the said section had not been so omitted." 5. Further, in terms of West Bengal Act-XXV of 1996, being West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996, Section 7 of the principal Act was directed to be reenacted in the following terms:- "(1) in subsection (1),- (a) for the words, figures and brackets in subsection (1) of Section 23 the words, figures, letter and brackets "in subsections (1), (1A) and (2) of Section 23" shall be substituted, and (b) the second proviso shall be omitted :- (2) in Clause (a) of subsection (2), for the words, figures and brackets "in subsection (2) of Section 23", the words, figures, letter and brackets "in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2) of Section 23" shall be substituted. 3. Insertion of now Section 7A-After Section 7 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted:- 7A. "Award by Collector-The Collector shall make an award under sub-section (2) of Section 7 within a period of three years from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under sub-section (1a) of Section 4 (hereinafter referred to as the said notice), and if such award is not made within the period as aforesaid, the said notice shall lapse:- Provided that in a case where the said notice has been published more than two years before the commencement of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1994 (West Bengal Act 14 of 1994), the award shall be made within a period of one year from the date of commencement of that Act. Explanation.-In computing the period of three years or one year as the case may be, under this section the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said notice is stayed by an order of a Court having jurisdiction, shall be excluded." 6. An application for recalling the said order had been filed on the grounds stated therein. All application for impleading West Bengal Housing Board was also filed which was allowed by order dated 6.7.98. An application for recalling the said order had been filed on the grounds stated therein. All application for impleading West Bengal Housing Board was also filed which was allowed by order dated 6.7.98. When the matter was again taken up for hearing this Court was informed that a valid acquisition proceedings had been started, and as such, it was directed that the entire writ application should be heard on merit, and in that view of the matter, the aforementioned order dated 7.7.97 was recalled. The Collector, Hooghly, was also directed to produce the records of the land acquisition proceedings before this Court. On 4.9.98, the matter was placed again before this Court when an inspection of the records, keeping in view the objections taken by Mr. Banerjee appearing for the petitioner, was allowed. 7. It appears that there exists a controversy as regards the actual date or making or award, whereas according to West Bengal Housing Board, award was made on 10.2.87, accord lag to the Collector, such an award was made on 9.1.87. It appears that by order No. 80 dated 9.1.87, only a draft award was prepared in respect or the entire requisition, and the same was to be sent for approval of the Land and Laud Reforms Department, which was done on 14.1.87. In terms of order No. 82 dated 10.2.87, the following order was passed:- "Seen the memo No. 341 L.A. dated 20th January, 1986. Also seen the documents collected from the L. & L.R. Department, L.A. Branch, Government has accorded section to declare the award. I do hereby declare the award for the amount of Rs.13,50,594.23 P. (Rupees thirteen lakh fifty thousand five hundred ninety four and paise twenty three) only on this day the 10th February, 1987. This award excludes serial No. 63 for which further enquiry is required. The same will be declared........." 8. So far as Hariram and Balaram are concerned, whose names appear at serial Nos. 18 and 19, although in Column 3 under the heading 'Amount payable to each', Rs.2,35,884.65 P. has been mentioned against the name of the said persons, Rs.7,116.03 P. and Rs.7,116.04 P, had been allegedly awarded, but total thereof has been said to be Rs.2,50,117.72 P. The said sheet is not signed by the Collector. 9. Mr. 18 and 19, although in Column 3 under the heading 'Amount payable to each', Rs.2,35,884.65 P. has been mentioned against the name of the said persons, Rs.7,116.03 P. and Rs.7,116.04 P, had been allegedly awarded, but total thereof has been said to be Rs.2,50,117.72 P. The said sheet is not signed by the Collector. 9. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the fact that notices under subsection (3) of Section 5 of the Act had been addressed to Balaram and Hariram only and further in view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector had all along knowledge that the name of the petitioner No. 1 had been mutated, and an attested record of right had also been prepared, it was incumbent upon the respondents to server notice upon him in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the said Act. Learned Counsel pointed out that the purport and object of a notice under subsection (2) of Section 3 and subsection (3) of Section 5 of Act-II of 1948 are quite different. According to the learned Counsel, the terminology 'person interested' has a wider connotation find the same would include reversionary, Shebait, Trustees end beneficiaries, occupancy and non-occupancy raiyat, lessee, lessee holding over, contractual tenants, statutory tenants, persons acquiring interest by use and occupation, mortgagee, intending purchaser and others Learned Counsel would urge that a duty has been cast upon the Collector to make enquiry with regard to all persons interested in the land and such statutory liabilities cannot be avoided by reasons of a simple service of notice under subsection (3) of Section 5 of the Act upon Harirem and Balaram, who had no subsisting right, title and interest in respect of the properties concerned. 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that from the records available with the Revenue Department, there could have been any doubt that Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sarkar was a person interested in the subject-matter of the land and in any event Collector must be held to have reasons to believe the same and despite the same no notice under Section 5(3) of the Act had been served upon him. Nirmal Kumar Sarkar was a person interested in the subject-matter of the land and in any event Collector must be held to have reasons to believe the same and despite the same no notice under Section 5(3) of the Act had been served upon him. It has been pointed out that whereas notices upon Hariram and Balaram are dated 7th November, 1986, this writ application had been filed as far back as on 22nd May, 1986 and notices therefor sent to the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of which due notice had been taken. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the authorities have failed to perform their statutory duties. It has been submitted that failure on the part of the Collector to serve notice is fatal and the entire proceeding is vitiated in law. It has been submitted that in terms of Section 7 of Act-II of 1948, a determination of amount of compensation is to be made whenever land is acquired under Section 4 and such determination would be made in accordance with the principle set out in Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as they may be applicable when such compensation has been determined. Under sub-section (1) the Collector is required to make an award which in terms of sub-section (2A) of Section 7 is to make in accordance with the principle set out in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel submits that a bare perusal of the award would show that the same does not conform to the provisions of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the lands have been acquired for public purpose. According to the learned as an award has been made bonafide and possession had also been taken bonafide, non-service of notice alone would not vitiate the proceeding. In support of the aforementioned contentions reliance has been made to (1) AIR 1984 P & H 1, State of Punjab v. Gurdyal Singh. 12. West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was enacted to provide for requisition and speedy acquisition of land by certain authorities as mentioned in the preamble thereof. The said act is not a self contained code. It, as noticed hereinbefore, refers to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 12. West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was enacted to provide for requisition and speedy acquisition of land by certain authorities as mentioned in the preamble thereof. The said act is not a self contained code. It, as noticed hereinbefore, refers to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. What would be effect of such provision has been considered recently in (2) Mariappa & Ors v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 1998(3) SCC 276 , wherein it has been held that such type of supplementary acts are exception to the rule of incorporation by reference. Section 7 of the Act-II of 1948 is in two parts. A compensation has to be paid under subsection (1) to every person interested on the basis of the principle set out in sub-section (1) of Section 23 so far as they may be applicable. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 however provides that when compensation has been determined under sub-section (1) Collector shall make an award in accordance with the principle set out in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of that Act shall also be included in that award. By reason of the amendment made in 1994 now all the benefits payable to an Awardee under subsections (1), (1A) and (2) of Section 23 are also to be extended. Although there appears to be a great deal of controversy as to whether service of a notice under subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory or not, I am of the view that the same is mandatory. Inasmuch as the said provision has to be considered and read with Section 25 of the said Act. Unless a person interested and particularly the person who is owner of the land is given notice, he is not in a position to state the market value of the land which, in his opinion, should be the basis of the award, as failing to do so would attract the provision of Section 25 thereof. Furthermore, a notice under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act is also required to be necessary so that the person interested may know the amount awarded in his favour and upon communication thereof, he may file an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Furthermore, a notice under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act is also required to be necessary so that the person interested may know the amount awarded in his favour and upon communication thereof, he may file an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. A provision whereby and whereunder a right of a person to question the quantum of compensation is taken away has got to be strictly construed. This aspect of the matter appears to have been considered in (3) Maniram v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 P & H 135; (4) State of Karnataka v. Gopinath Nair reported in 1975 KLT 497 and (5) prabhudayal v. Union of India reported in 1984 (2) DLT 429, although there are decisions to the contrary. In any event, in this case, as noticed hereinbefore, a plea cannot be taken that the respondents were not aware that the petitioners have purchased the land in question. Apart from the fact that Parcha was delivered in his favour as far back as on 10.12.85, his name was also recorded in the attested stage of record-of-right wherein it has clearly been shown that the petitioner has purchased the lands in question by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 21.4.67. The matter relating to maintenance of a corrected record-of rights not only arises under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and in particular, Section 44(2A) thereof the same also arises under Sections 50 and 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In terms of Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, a statutory duty has been cast upon the prescribed authority who had been appointed as Revenue Officer by the State by issuance of various notifications to maintain upto date record-of-rights in the prescribed manner by incorporating therein changes, inter alia, on account of mutation of names as a result of transfer or inheritance. Grant of Parcha as contained in Annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-opposition, itself shows that the Revenue authorities acted upon the said deed of sale dated 21.4.67. Furthermore, Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act mandates the manner in which such record-of-rights should be revised or prepared. Grant of Parcha as contained in Annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-opposition, itself shows that the Revenue authorities acted upon the said deed of sale dated 21.4.67. Furthermore, Section 51 of the Land Reforms Act mandates the manner in which such record-of-rights should be revised or prepared. The detailed procedure therefore has been prescribed in Schedule 'A' for revision or preparation of record-of-rights where an order has been made under Section 51 directing that record-of-rights be revised or prepared by a Revenue Officer in respect of the land of any district or any part thereof for which following process has been prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 'A' which is as follows:- (1) Traverse survey; (2) Cadastral survey; (3) Preliminary record writing (or khanapuri); (4) Local Inspection (or bujharat); (5) Attestation; (6) Publication of the draft record-of-rights; (7) Disposal of objections; (8) Preparation and publication of the final record-of-rights. 13. It is not out of place to mention that G.N. Ray, J., in (6) Ganga Rant Bera v. State of West Bengal reported in 1987 (1) CLJ 36 (although correctness of the ratio of the said decision is doubtful) has categorically held that after attestation stage, only an Officer higher than Revenue Inspector and specially empowered therefor can make any change in the record-of-rights. The respondents were and/or must be deemed to be aware of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case. Furthermore, in this case, the mala fides on the part of the respondents are evident from the fact that despite having notice of the writ application filed by the petitioner through his Advocate and despite nothing the same in the order No. 72, he did not make any attempt whatsoever to serve notice upon the petitioner. A distinction has to be made between the notice under Section 3 of Act-II of 1948, as requisition is made for temporary period; whereas if an acquisition is made under Section 4 of the Act, as thereby right, title and interest of a person in respect of land is taken away for all time to come, it is the bounden duty of the Collector to cause notice to be served on an such persons interested or believe to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for person so interested. If the aforementioned provisions read with Section 9 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt that a duty has been cast upon the Collector at least to make some enquiry. In this case respondents themselves have stated that the petitioner obtained possession in the year 1983. They themselves in their affidavit-in-opposition have annexed a copy of the record-of-rights which was attested on 15th October, 1985. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 uses the word 'shall'. The said terminology has also been used in subsection (3) of Section 5 of the said Act-II of 1948. In view of the scheme of the Act, it has to be held that in case of non-compliance of requirement of Section 9(3) an award under Section 11 not binding on the person concerned. In (7) V. Ganga Durga v. District Collector reported in AIR 1971 AP 310 also it has been held that such service is mandatory. 14. The question as to whether by reason of non-service of a notice under Section 9 would vitiate the entire proceeding or not would depend upon the fact of each case. The authorities under the Act, in my considered opinion, keeping in view the scheme of the Act must awake a sincere attempt to serve a notice upon the persons interested or believed to be interested. 15. In Gurdyal Singh's case (supra), no law in absolute term has been laid down. The definition of persons interested in terms of Section 3(b) of the Act being an inclusive definition is of the wide amplitude. In that case also it has been held that apart from the land owners ever, mortgagee, a tenant, a lessee, a person having an easement over the land a host of other would come within the said phraseology. Although no notice upon all types of persons interested may be held to be absolutely mandatory, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that even if the said provision is held to be directory one, a substantial compliance thereof must be made. In any event, the owner of the land is the most affected person who is entitled to such notice. It is not a case where the respondents are not aware as to who was the owner of the land. They, in view of their own statements and in view of their own records produced before this Court were aware of such fact. It is not a case where the respondents are not aware as to who was the owner of the land. They, in view of their own statements and in view of their own records produced before this Court were aware of such fact. However, it appears that even in the aforementioned Full Bench decision the provision of Section 9(3) has not been considered keeping in view the right of the owner of the land under Section 18 of the Act and Section 25 thereof. In (8) AIR 1974 Karnataka page 74, it has been held that from the order-sheet it must be shown that burden to prove that an effort to serve notice upon persons mentioned in subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act had been made, is on the Collector. A right to make a reference is a valuable right and once the award has to be communicated to a person with a view to enable him to make a reference, such a procedure has to be complied with. Unfortunately in Gurdyal Singh's case (supra), the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were rammish in highlighting this aspect or the matter. It is now well settled principal of law that a decision cannot be a binding precedent on a point which had not been argued. See (9) Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1990 SC 781 and 1997(1) SCC 203 . 16. A plea of bona fide has to be specifically raised and proved. Such a plea had not been taken by the Collector. According to him, even an award has been made on 9.1.87 which now appears to be merely a proposal and the same thus was not an award. Furthermore an award which is subject to sanction is to award at all. 17. In any event, keeping in view the fact that even the petitioner had filed a writ application earlier, it must be held that such notice had been withheld from the petitioner wilfully and/or fraudulently. 18. In (10) Smt. Rani Aloka Dudhoria v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998(1) CLT (HC) 92, a division bench noticed:- "A word in statute has to be interpreted in manner which carry out the intention of the legislative in its true prospective." 19. 18. In (10) Smt. Rani Aloka Dudhoria v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998(1) CLT (HC) 92, a division bench noticed:- "A word in statute has to be interpreted in manner which carry out the intention of the legislative in its true prospective." 19. The action cannot be said to be a bonafide omission on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector. In any event, evidently the purported award is no award in the eye of law. What would constitute an award has been considered in (11) AIR 1991 Delhi 132 and (12) 1994(5) SCC 686 . 20 S.A. De' Smith in Constitutional and Administrative Law, at page 551 referred to (13) Lee v. Department of Education, (1967) 66 LGR 211 and (14) Agricultural Etc. Training Board v. Kent (1970) 2 QB 3 and commented "Examples of procedural requirements which have been held to be mandatory include failure to give letter of a right to appeal within a specified period, failure to give the address to which an appeal must be lodged, failure to notify persons affected by a proposed administrative order in due time". 21. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act presupposes an enquiry for the purpose of finding as to whether any other person possesses any interest in the land or any part thereof of not. Collector has been given a statutory power in terms of Section 10 thereof to require any person to make or deliver to him at a time and place mentioned, a statement contained so far as may be practicable, names of every other persons possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof or co-proprietor, sub-proprietor. Mortgagee, tenant or otherwise and of the nature of such interest and of the land and properties (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next proceeding the date of the statement. 22. An enquiry contemplated under Section 11 of the Act is necessary so as to enable the Collector to take possession, as in terms of Section 16 of the Act, the right to take possession arises only when an award is made and upon taking possession only land vests absolutely in the Govt. free from all encumbrances and, thus, all procedures laid down under Section 9, 10 and 11 should be complied with. free from all encumbrances and, thus, all procedures laid down under Section 9, 10 and 11 should be complied with. In terms of Section 11, a Collector is required to enquire into the objection which might have been filed by any persons interested pursuant to a notice under Section 9 not only with regard to the valuation of the land but also with regard to the measurement made under Section 8 and the competing interests of the persons claiming compensation. Interest of the persons who had filed objections may be competing ones and the Collector subject to the final determination made by a Civil Court in terms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is prima facie required to determine such rival claims of interest in the land sought to be acquired. The duty of the Collector in terms of Section 11 although is administrative in nature but the same has the trappings of a quasi judicial function. Only upon an enquiry in the manner laid down therein, he is required to make an award under his hand as regard:-(1) the true area of the land; (2) compensation which in his opinion should be allowed to the land and (3) apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. No such enquiry has been conducted nor any such award has been made and in fact estimate of compensation which was made by way of draft award only upon alleged receipt of sanction has been declared to be an award. The said order dated 10.2.87 being not in respect of each and every parcel of land for which such enquiry is required to be made thus is ultra vires Section 11 of the Act. No valid award, therefore, can be said to have been made by the Collector while passing the said order dated 10.2.87. If no valid award has been made, in view of the Amendment Act of 1996 which is in part materia with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, consequences laid down therein would ensue. 23. No valid award, therefore, can be said to have been made by the Collector while passing the said order dated 10.2.87. If no valid award has been made, in view of the Amendment Act of 1996 which is in part materia with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, consequences laid down therein would ensue. 23. In that view of the matter, despite the fact that original writ petitioner has sold out land in question by reason of deed of sale dated 1st April, 1995 in favour of the added petitioner, the writ petition must be held to be maintainable as this Court is entitled to take into consideration the subsequent change in the law which applies to full force is this case. It has not been argued that by reason of order of status, quo passed by this Court, period during which the said order remains valid would be excluded from computation of the period mentioned under Section 7A of the Act inasmuch as it is the case of the respondents themselves that the said order had inured to their benefit as they had been in possession pursuant to the notice of requisition of the self-same land. Do the aforementioned findings mean that this Court would grant relief’s prayed for in the writ application ? Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court exercises an equitable Jurisdiction. It has not been disputed that the lands acquired for the benefit of the West Bengal Housing Board had been held to be valid in certain other cases. Although the fact of such cases are different, but this Court cannot shut its eyes that the entire project undertaken by the added respondents may be jeopardised if the lands are directed to be restored to the petitioners. Both the petitioners and the respondents are equally guilty of making wrong statements before this Court in so far as whereas in the writ application original petitioner stated that he had been in possession of the lands and only presumably on the basis thereof obtained an order of, status quo, the respondents had also made various attempts to mislead this Court by taking different studs at different point of time. It may be placed on records that although strong exception had been taken to the reliance placed by the learned Counsel to the attested copy of the record-of-rights which has been filed by the respondents themselves with their affidavit-in-opposition on the ground that the same is merely an attested copy, it had not, despite query, been disclosed to this Court as to when revisional record-of-rights has been published and that too in whose name. Such withholding or vital materials on the part of the State and particularly in view of the fact that they feigned ignorance about the execution of deed of sale by Hariram and Balaram are favour of the petitioner on 21.4.67 amounts to suppresto vert and suggestio faist". 24. In (15) Jaikrishna Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in 1998(1) CLT (HC) 50, it has been held that the Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest. 25. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that equities have to be adjusted between the parties and such adjustment of equity is possible by directing grant of compensation to the petitioner, to the same extent to which they would have been entitled to as of today as if the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been published on this date. It goes without saying that such compensation should be determined upon living notices to the added petitioner Smt. Dipti Banerjee, who in the event of her dissatisfaction on the amount of compensation may take recourse to the remedies available to her in terms of the statute. Keeping in view the fact that this writ application has itself been pending, no separate notice has to be served upon the added petitioner and the added petitioner may appear before the respondents No. 2 by 30th October, 1998 with her objection, if any, and an award may be made at an early date and preferably within two months from date. This order is being passed keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in (16) AIR 1990 SC 428 para 14. This writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. There will be no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy. If applied for, may be giving on priority basis.