JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is against a judgment and order dated 10th April, 2002 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed, in part, the writ application filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and directed the appellant State to hand-over to the respondents, possession of the properties of the respondent No. 1 at Park Street, Taratolla and Narkeldanga, Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as the disputed properties, which had not vested in the appellant State under the Oriental Gas Company act, 1960, as amended from time to time or alternatively, to pay the respondents compensation in lieu thereof. The respondents have also filed a cross-objection to the said judgment and order. 2. THE Respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the company, was initially constituted in England in April, 1853, by a Deed of Settlement, and later incorporated under the provisions of the English Joint Stock companies Act, 1862, for manufacture, supply, distribution and sale of fuel gas in Calcutta. The management and control of the company gradually passed from British to Indian hands and on or about 23rd June, 1947 a company known as Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which acquired 98% of the total stock of the company. Pursuant to an agreement executed on 24th April, 1948 the said calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. were appointed Managers of the company in India for twenty years. 3. THE company had, over the years, acquired extensive properties and became the owner of a large industrial undertaking comprising inter alia a huge plant, machinery, buildings, structures, land, pipe lines and stores. 4. ON or about 1st October, 1960, the West Bengal Legislative assembly enacted the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the said 1960 Act, for taking over the management and control of the undertaking of the Company for a limited period, and subsequent acquisition. Some of the relevant provisions of the said 1960 Act are extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, - (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some of the relevant provisions of the said 1960 Act are extracted hereinbelow for convenience: "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, - (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) "company" means the Oriental Gas Company Limited referred to in Act V of 1857; (3) "undertaking of the Company" means the properties of the company, movable or immovable, other than cash balances and reserve funds but including works, workshops, plants, machineries, posts, pipes, pipe-lines, appliances, apparatus, accessories, furniture, equipments and stores and lands appertaining thereto, actually in use immediately before the commencement of this Act, or intended to be used, in connection with the production of gas or supply thereof in Calcutta and its environs ; (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette (a copy of which shall be served on the Company), take over for a period of five years with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification (hereinafter referred to as the appointed day), not being earlier than seven days from the date of publication of the notification on the Official Gazette, the management and control of the undertaking of the Company for the purposes, and in accordance with the provisions, of this Act. 4. 4. With effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years thereafter - (a) the undertaking of the company shall stand transferred to the State Government for the purpose of management and control; (b) the company and its agents, including managing agents, if any, and servants shall cease to exercise management or control in relation to the undertaking of the Company; (c) all contracts, excluding any contract or contracts in respect of agency or managing agency, subsisting immediately before the appointed day and affecting the undertaking of the company shall cease to have effect or to be enforceable against the Company, its agents or any person who was a surety thereto or had guaranteed the performance thereof and shall be of as full force and effect against or in favour of the State of West Bengal and shall be enforceable as fully and effectively as if instead of the Company the State of West Bengal had been named therein or had been a party thereto. Provided that -5. (1) On the transfer of the undertaking of the Company to the State government, for the purpose of management and control, under clause (a) of Section 4, every person, including a transferee referred to in the proviso to clause (c) of section 4, in whose possession, custody or control the undertaking of the Company or any part thereof may be, shall forthwith deliver possession of the undertaking of the Company or part thereof, as the case may be, to the State Government. 6. (1) The undertaking of the Company shall be run by the State government and shall be used and utilized by the State government for purposes of production of gas and supply thereof to industrial undertaking, hospitals and other welfare institutions, to local authorities for street lighting and for other purposes, if any, and to the public in general for domestic consumption, and for this purpose the State Government shall have all the powers of the Company under Act, V of 1957. (2) The State Government may for effectively carrying out the purposes of this Act, add, at its own cost, to the undertaking of the Company such new works, workshops, plants, machinery, posts, pipes, pipe-lines, appliances, apparatus, accessories, furniture, equipment, stores, lands, buildings, erections or fixtures as it may consider necessary. 7. (2) The State Government may for effectively carrying out the purposes of this Act, add, at its own cost, to the undertaking of the Company such new works, workshops, plants, machinery, posts, pipes, pipe-lines, appliances, apparatus, accessories, furniture, equipment, stores, lands, buildings, erections or fixtures as it may consider necessary. 7. (1) The State Government may, if it so thinks fit, at any time within the period of five years referred to in section 4, acquire the undertaking of the Company by notification published in the Official gazette for the purpose of this Act. (2) On the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the undertaking of the Company shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notification is so published vest absolutely in the State Government free from all incumbrances. (3) If the undertaking of the Company be not acquired by the state Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government shall, on the expiry of the period of five years referred to in section 4, by order made in this behalf, transfer the management and control of the undertaking to the company after removing or disposing of such additions to the undertaking as may have been made by the State Government at its own cost in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, unless the Company agrees to pay the amount being the cost of such additions less such depreciation as may be agreed upon or, in the absence of agreement, determined by a Tribunal appointed for the purpose. The amount so agreed upon or determined shall be paid by the company to the State government within such time as may be agreed upon or allowed by the Tribunal and until such payment, the amount shall a charge on the undertaking of the company. 8. (1) In respect of the taking over of the management and control, under Section 3, or acquisition under Section 7, of the undertaking of the Company, there shall be paid by the State Government to the Company compensation to be determined under sub-section (2), as follows, that is to say, - (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) in the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, the total compensation payable shall be, -a sum representing the purchase price of the undertaking of the company reduced by such depreciation as may be allowed by the Tribunal referred to in sub-section (2) after considering the period and the nature of the use and the present condition of the properties concerned on the date of vesting in the State government under section 7, or a sum representing eight times the average net income of the undertaking of the Company over a period of five complete years preceding the year in which the undertaking of the Company has been transferred to the State Government under clause (a) of section 4 for the purpose of management and control. Whichever is less. Explanation.- In this sub-section - (i) "purchase price of the undertaking of the Company" means the aggregate of the prices of the different parts of the undertaking of the Company at the respective dates on which such parts were purchased, acquired or constructed by the Company; (ii) "net income of the undertaking of the Company" means the difference between the amount of gross revenue receipts and other general receipts accountable in the assessment of Indian income-tax arising from, and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the Company and the amount of expenditure incurred on the following.- (a) rents, rates and taxes, (b) interest on loans and security deposits, (c) maintenance and repair, (d) collection charges, (e) cost of management, including the remuneration of managing agents, if any, (f) other expenses admissible under the law for the time being in force in the assessment of Indian income-tax and arising from, and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the company, and (g) such other expenses as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. (2) The compensation payable in respect of the taking over under section 3 of the management and control, or in respect of the acquisition under sub-section (1) of section 7, of the undertaking of the Company or the amount payable by the Company under sub-section (3) of section 7 for the additions made by the State government at its own cost to the undertaking of the Company shall be determined by a Tribunal which shall be appointed by the Stale government consisting of a person who is or has been a Judge of a high Court, or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge and such Tribunal shall make an award in respect of the compensation so determined. (5) Any party aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal made under sub-section (2) may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of such award. 9. (1) In the case of the taking over of the management and control of the undertaking of the Company, the State Government shall pay to the Company the amount of the compensation determined under section 8 in cash -a) jn respect of the period prior to the date of the award, within sixty days from the date of the. award made by the Tribunal, or, as the case may be, from the date of the order of the High court in the case of an appeal, and (b) thereafter, annually on the close of the year in respect of which the compensation is payable. award made by the Tribunal, or, as the case may be, from the date of the order of the High court in the case of an appeal, and (b) thereafter, annually on the close of the year in respect of which the compensation is payable. (2) In the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, as soon as possible after the date of the award made by the tribunal, or, as the case may be, the date or the order of the High court in the case of an appeal, the State Government shall pay to the Company the amount of compensation determined under section 8 in bonds carrying interest at the rate of three per centum per annum with effect from the date of issue and payable in twenty equal annual instalments: provided that the State Government may at any time or from time to time pay one or more instalments, even before such payment is due, with interest up to the date of payment after giving notice in the Official Gazette of its intention to do so : provided further that interest on such instalment or instalments shall cease on the expiry of the date of payment if payment of such instalment or instalments be not taken in pursuance of the notice referred to above. 10 (1) The State Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. " 5. THE said 1960 Act came into force by a Notification No. 4213 dated 3rd October, 1960. By another Notification No. 4214, also dated 3rd October, 1960 Rules were framed under the said 1960 Act. 6. BY a Notification No. 4215 MP dated 3rd October, 1960, the appellant State took over the management and control of the undertaking of the company, for a period of 5 years with effect from 17th October, 1960. On 14th October, 1960, Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd., managers of the Company, filed an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India in this Court, challenging the vires of the said 1960 Act, whereupon a Rule Nisi was issued. The application under Article 226 was, however, dismissed by a judgment and order dated 15th November, 1960 and the Rule Nisi discharged. 7. ON 16th November, 1960, the appellant State took possession of the undertaking of the Company. The appellant State also took possession of the disputed properties. 8. The application under Article 226 was, however, dismissed by a judgment and order dated 15th November, 1960 and the Rule Nisi discharged. 7. ON 16th November, 1960, the appellant State took possession of the undertaking of the Company. The appellant State also took possession of the disputed properties. 8. THE Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court, against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 1960 of this Court. The appeal was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 5th February, 1962. Later, by a Notification No. 1283 MP/1a-1/62 dated 22nd March, 1962, the appellant - State acquired the undertaking of the Company, in exercise of power conferred by Section 7 of the said 1960 Act. 9. ON or about 30th January, 1964, the appellant State constituted a tribunal, for determining the compensation payable to the company, for the take over of the management and control and subsequent acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, under the said 1960 Act. 10. IN exercise of power conferred by Section 10 of the said 1960 Act, the appellant State issued a notification dated 5th May, 1963, framing rules to regulate the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal for adjudication of the claim for compensation. The company filed an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India being Matter No/265 of 1965 in this Court, challenging the validity of the said 1960 Act on the ground that the compensation provided under the said Act was not the just equivalent of the value of the assets of the company acquired under the said 1960 Act. 11. WHILE the said Matter No. 265 of 1965 was pending, the President of India enacted the Oriental Gas Company (Amendment) Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Amendment Act, in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the West Bengal State Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1968, amending the said 1960 Act. 12. SECTION 4 of the said 1960 Act, as amended by the. 1968 Amendment act, provided as follows : "4. 12. SECTION 4 of the said 1960 Act, as amended by the. 1968 Amendment act, provided as follows : "4. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2a) of section 7, with effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years hereinafter, or, in the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company under section 7, till the date of such acquisition, whichever is earlier - (a) the undertaking of the company shall stand transferred to the state Government for the purpose of management and control; (b) the company and its agents, including managing agents, if any, and servants shall cease to exercise management or control in relation to the undertaking of the Company ; (c) all contracts, excluding any contract or contracts in respect of agency or managing agency, subsisting immediately before the appointed day and affecting the undertaking of the Company shall cease to have effect or to be enforceable against the Company, its agents or any person who was a surety thereto or had guaranteed the performance thereof and shall be of as full force and effect against or in favour of the State of West Bengal and shall be enforceable as fully and effectively as if instead of the company the State of West Bengal had been named therein or had been a party thereto. Provided that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The 1968 Amendment Act inserted sub-sections (2a) and (2b) after sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said 1960 Act. The said sub-sections are extracted hereinbelow: "7 (2a) On the- vesting of the undertaking of the Company in the state Government, the provisions of clause (c) and (d) of section 4 shall continue to have effect as if the limitation regarding the period of five years or the period till the acquisition of the undertaking of the Company were not mentioned in that Section. 7 (2b) Every person employed in connection with the undertaking of the Company and continuing in office immediately before the date of vesting of the undertaking of the Company in the State Government under sub-section (2) shall be employed by the State Government on such terms and conditions (not being less advantageous than what they were entitled to immediately before such date) as may be determined by the State Government and until his employment is terminated or until such terms and conditions are duly altered by the State Government by rules made in this behalf. Provided that if the alteration so made is not acceptable to any such person, his employment may be terminated by the State Government on payment to him by the State Government of compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration, if he is a permanent employee, and one month's remuneration, if he is not a permanent employee," 13. THE 1968 Amendment Act substituted sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said 1960 Act, with the following sub-sections : "8 (1), In respect of the taking over of the management and control under section 3, or acquisition under section 7, of the undertaking of the company, there shall be paid by the State Government to the Company compensation to be determined under sub-section (2) as follows, that is to say: -In the case of taking over of the management and control of the undertaking of the Company, the annual compensation payable shall be a sum representing the average of the net annual income of the undertaking of the Company over a period of three accounting years ending on the 30th June, 1960. Explanation.- For the purpose of this paragraph, "net annual income of the undertaking of the Company" means the difference between the amount of gross revenue receipts and other general receipts accountable in the assessment of Indian income-tax arising from and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the Company and the amount of expenditure incurred on the following namely : - (i) rents, rates and taxes ; (ii) interest on loans and security deposits ; (iii) maintenance and repair; (iv) collection charges; (v) cost of management, including, the remuneration to managing agents, if any; and (vi) other expenses admissible under the law for the time being in force in the assessment of Indian income-tax and arising from, and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the company. In the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, the compensation payable by the State Government shall be determined in accordance with the principles specified in the Schedule. Notwithstanding that separate valuation are calculated under the principles specified in the Schedule in respect of the several matters referred to therein, the amount of compensation to be given shall be deemed to be a single compensation to be given for the undertaking as a whole. " 14. THE 1968 Amendment Act also amended sub-section 2 of Section 9. The said sub-section, as amended is set forth hereinbelow : "in the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, as soon as possible after the date of the award made by the Tribunal, or, as the case may be, the date or the order of the High Court in the case of an appeal, the State Government shall pay to the Company the amount of compensation determined under section 8 in bonds carrying interest at the rate of three per centum per annum with effect from the date of enactment of the Oriental Gas Company (Amendment) Act, 1968 :" The 1968 Amendment Act inserted clause (aa) after clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 10, Section 10a after Section 10 and the Schedule after Section 11, which are set out hereinbelow : 10 (1) (aa ). The terms and conditions of service of persons employed in the undertaking of the Company and referred to in sub-section (28) of section 7 ; 10a. The terms and conditions of service of persons employed in the undertaking of the Company and referred to in sub-section (28) of section 7 ; 10a. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. The SCHEDULE [see Section 8 (1) (b) ] principles for determining compensation for acquisition of the undertaking of the company. Paragraph I.- The compensation to-be paid by the State Government to the Company in respect of acquisition of the undertaking thereof shall be an amount equal to the sum total of the value of the properties and assets of the Company as on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph II less the sum total of the liabilities and obligations of the company as on that date calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph III, together with the interest on such amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph IV. Paragraph II.- (a) The market value on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company - (i) of any land or building ; (ii) of any plant, machinery or other equipment; (iii) of any shares, securities or other investments held by the company; (b) the total amount of the premises paid by the Company up to the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company in respect of all the lease hold properties reduced in the case of each such premium by an amount which bears to such premium the same proportion as the expired term of the lease in respect of which such premium shall have been paid bears to the total terms of the lease; (c) the amount of debts due to the company on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, whether secured or unsecured, to the extent to which they are reasonably considered to be recoverable; (d) the amount of cash held by the Company on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, whether in deposit with a Bank OF otherwise; (e) the market value on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company of all tangible assets and properties otherthan those falling within any of the preceding clauses. Paragraph III.- The total amount of liabilities and obligations incurred by the Company in connection with the formation, management and administration of the undertaking of the company and subsisting immediately before the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the company; provided that any of the properties, assets, liabilities or obligations of the Company as on the date of acquisition of the undertaking of the company shall not include such properties or assets as were added, invested or acquired and such liabilities or obligations as were incurred in connection with such addition, investment or acquisition by the State government during the period of management and control of the undertaking of the Company. Paragraph IV.- The interest referred to in paragraph I shall be on the amount mentioned in the said paragraph forthe period commencing from the date of vesting of the undertaking of the Company under sub-section (2) of section 7 and ending with the date immediately before the date of enactment of the Oriental Gas Company (Amendment) Act, 1968, calculated at the average bank rate during the said period. " 15. " 15. IT is staled that in view of the aforesaid amendments, whereby the method of computation of compensation, under Section 8 of the said 1960 Act was altered, the company was advised not to proceed with the said writ application being Matter No. 268 of 1965. The writ application was dismissed for default on 2nd August, 1969. 16. ON or about 24th February, 1970, the West Bengal Legislative assembly passed the Oriental Gas Company (Amendment) Act, 1970 which is hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Amendment Act, to re-enact the 1968 amendment Act, enacted by the President of India during the period of operation of the proclamation issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the constitution of India. Section 4 as amended by the 1970 Amendment Act provides as follows : "4. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2a) of section 7, with effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years thereafter, or, in the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company under section 7, till the date of such acquisition, whichever is earlier - " 17. SECTION 7 of the said 1960 Act has been amended by insertion of sub-sections (2a) and (2b) extracted hereinbelow for convenience: " (2a) On the vesting of the undertaking of the Company in the State government, the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of section 4 shall continue to have effect as if the limitation regarding the period of five years or the period till the acquisition of the undertaking of the Company were not mentioned in that Section. 7 (2b) Every person employed in connection with the undertaking of the Company and continuing in office immediately before the date of vesting of the undertaking of the Company in the State Government under sub-section (2) shall be employed by the State Government on such terms and conditions (not being less advantageous than what they were entitled to immediately before such date) as may be determined by the State Government and until his employment is terminated or until such terms and conditions are duly altered by the State Government by rules made in this behalf: provided that if the alteration so made is hot acceptable to any such person, his employment may be terminated by the State Government on payment to him by the State Government of compensation equivalent, to three months' remuneration, if he is a permanent employee, and one month's remuneration, if he is not a permanent employee. 18. SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 8 of the said 1960 Act has been amended as follows : "in respect of the taking over of the management and control under section 3, or acquisition under section 7, of the undertaking of the company, there shall be paid by the State Government to the Company compensation to be determined under sub-section (2), in accordance with the following principles, namely : - (a) in the case of taking over of the management and control o! the undertaking of the Company, the annual compensation payable shall be a sum representing the average of the net annual income of the undertaking of the Company over a period of three accounting years ending in June, 1960. (b) in the case of acquisition of the undertaking of the Company, the compensation payable by the State Government shall be a sum representing eight times the average net income ot the undertaking of the Company over a period of five complete years preceding the year in which the undertaking of the company has been transferred to the State Government under clause (a) of section 4 for the purpose of management and control. Explanation.- In this sub-section "net annual income of the undertaking of the Company" means the difference between the amount of gross revenue receipts and other general receipts accountable in the assessment of Indian income-tax arising from and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the Company and the amount of expenditure incurred on the following : - (a) rents, rates and taxes ; (b) interest on loans and security deposits ; (c) maintenance and repair; (d) collection charges ; (e) cost of management, including, the remuneration of Managing agents, if any; (f) other expenses admissible under the law for the time being in force in the assessment of Indian income-tax and arising from, and ancillary or incidental to, the business of the company. " On or about 20th September, 1971 the company filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court being W. P. No. 343 of 1971, challenging the vires of the said 1960 Act, as amended by the 1970 Amendment Act. The said writ application was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 12th September, 1978. 19. ON or about 9th July, 1981, the Appellant State issued a notification in the Calcutta Gazette, appointing Mr. B. C. Mitra, a retired Judge of this Court, chairman of the Tribunal constituted under Section 8{2) of the said 1960 Act 20. THE Tribunal was entrusted with the task of investigating into the claim of the Company for compensation payable to it, firstly for take over of the management of the Company, by the Appellant State, and then for acquisition of the undertaking of the Company. The manner and method of investigation into, the claims of the company have been prescribed by the said 1960 Act, as amended from time to time and the Rules framed thereunder. 21. PROCEEDINGS before the Tribunal commenced on 3rd May, 1982 and the respective parties filed their claim and rejoinder and adduced evidence. On behalf of the company, it was inter alia contended that the disputed properties were neither used, nor intended to be used in connection with the production of gas or supply thereof in Calcutta. The disputed properties were, therefore, not part of the undertaking of the Company as defined in Section 2 (3) of the said 1960 Act, and could not have been acquired under the said 1960 Act. The disputed properties were, therefore, not part of the undertaking of the Company as defined in Section 2 (3) of the said 1960 Act, and could not have been acquired under the said 1960 Act. The company, however, claimed compensation for the disputed properties, which had, according to the company, illegally been taken over. 22. COUNSEL appearing before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Appellant state, conceded that the disputed properties were neither used nor intended to be used for the company's business of production and supply of gas, and did not constitute the undertaking of the Company. On behalf of the appellant State, it was argued that, the Tribunal being a creature of the said 1960 Act, had no jurisdiction to award compensation for the disputed assets, which did not constitute the undertaking of the company, within the meaning of the said 1960 Act. 23. IT was further argued that the Tribunal was powerless even if the taking over of the disputed assets amounted to expropriation of the same by the State, without payment of compensation. The remedy, if any, of the company lay elsewhere. 24. ON 15th October, 1984, the Tribunal made its award. The Tribunal inter alia held that the disputed properties, that is, the Park Street office of the company, free-hold land measuring 4 bighas, 3 cottas 3 chittaks and 22 square feet at 46/10 Narkeldanga Main Road, Calcutta and leasehold land measuring 4 bighas, 18 cottas 14 square feet at Taratala Road, Calcutta, were neither used nor intended to be used for the business of the Company of production and distribution of gas and, therefore, did not constitute the 'undertaking of the company' within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the said 1960 Act. The relevant portion of the award is extracted hereinbelow : "Mr. Khaitan had originally argued forcefully that his client was entitled to compensation for assets not used nor intended to be used for production and distribution of gas and he led a considerable volume of evidence in support of his contention mentioned above. I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Mr. Khaitan that compensation should be awarded to his client in respect of the assets which on the evidence before the Tribunal, were neither used nor intended to be used for the production and distribution of gas. I must record however that Mr. I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Mr. Khaitan that compensation should be awarded to his client in respect of the assets which on the evidence before the Tribunal, were neither used nor intended to be used for the production and distribution of gas. I must record however that Mr. Khaitan ultimately conceded that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation in respect of such aspect under the provision in section 8 and 9 of the Act. Accordingly, I hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award any compensation to the claimant in respect of assets which have been taken over by the Respondent and which were neither used nor intended to be used for the purpose of the business of production and distribution of gas. " 25. IN the meanwhile, by an order dated 4th June, 1966 the plot of land of the Company measuring about 4 bighas, at 46/1 Narkeldanga Main Road, calcutta, was formally transferred to the Superintendent, West Bengal government Press, Alipore, in public interest. 26. ON or about 12th November, 1976 the State Government executed a Deed of Surrender, surrendering 4090. 611 square metres out of 4588. 951 square metres of leasehold land at Taratala in favour of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta with effect from 5th May, 1975. The appellant State filed an appeal against the said award before a Division Bench of this Court, which was numbered F. A. 102 of 1985. The appellant State did not, however, challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the disputed properties had neither been used nor intended to be used for the business of the company of production and distribution of gas. 27. AFTER the Tribunal made and published its award, the Company made futile representations to the appellant for return of the disputed properties. In June, 1987, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 2595 of 1987, inter alia praying for a declaration that the appellant State had no jurisdiction to take over possession of the disputed properties, which were never used in connection with the production or supply of gas. The respondents also sought orders for return of the disputed properties, and/or other consequential reliefs. 28. The respondents also sought orders for return of the disputed properties, and/or other consequential reliefs. 28. WHILE the writ application was pending, a Division Bench of this court passed a judgment and order dated 30th August, 1999 disposing of the said appeal being F. A. No. 102 of 1985 filed by the appellant State, by modifying a minor part of the award of the Tribunal, pertaining to interest. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1999 of the Division Bench, is set out hereinbelow : "therefore, we modify clause (4) of the Award to this extent that as regards post Award interest at the rate of 3% per annum calculated by the Tribunal, such interest will not be payable on any amount which has been paid by the appellant pursuant to the Award. The other parts of the award are however affirmed. The appeal is thus allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. " 29. THE finding of the Tribunal that the disputed properties were neither used nor intended to be used in connection with production or supply of gas and were, therefore, not part of the "undertaking of the company' within the meaning of the said 1960 Act, stood confirmed. 30. BY the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is extracted hereinbelow for convenience : "in that view of the matter the writ petition succeeds. The State and/ or the newly formed company under the said Act, 1960 is directed to give possession of the Narkeldanga Properties, Taratala Godwon and park Streed Office back to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from date. In case, the State decides to retain those properties it must pay compensation in lieu thereof, i, therefore, refer this matter to the Land Acquisition Collector, West bengal for assessment of compensation. The State of West Bengal and/ or new Government company formed under the said Act, 1960 must inform the Land Acquisition Collector, West Bengal as well as the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date, their intention with regard to retention of the properties. In case the State desires give possession of the said properties it must do so within the time so stipulated hereinbefore. In case the State desires give possession of the said properties it must do so within the time so stipulated hereinbefore. In such case, the land Acquisition Collector would assess appropriate compensation for user of the said three properties from the date of acquisition until their return to the petitioner. In case the State wants to retain the properties the Land Acquisition collector, West Bengal would assess the compensation for such retention as on the date of taking over and would also award appropriate interest from the said date until such compensation is paid to the petitioner. The Land Acquisition Collector, West Bengal would in any way complete the assessment proceedings within a period six weeks from the date of communication of the intention by the State to him. The State is directed to make payment of the compensation within a period of two weeks from the date of communication about the compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Bengal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. " Being purportedly aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Single judge, whereby the appellant State has been directed to return the disputed properties, or alternatively pay compensation for the same, the Appellant State has filed this appeal. 31. THE respondents have filed a cross-appeal against the said judgment and order in so far as the said judgment and order directs that compensation, as on the date of taking over of the disputed properties, be assessed, 32. THE respondents have also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in not directing the appellant State to pay to the Company, along with interest, a sum of Rs. 6,62,939/- allegedly realised by the appellant State towards book debts, after take over the management of the company. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the Company was entitled to return of the disputed properties, in view of the stand taken by the appellant State before the Tribunal, that the disputed properties did not constitute the undertaking of the Company, within the meaning of Section 2 (3)of the said 1960 Act and did not vest under the said Act, 33. THE finding of the Tribunal, of the disputed properties not vesting under the 1960 Act, having been affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench, the finding cannot be questioned in any collateral proceedings. THE finding of the Tribunal, of the disputed properties not vesting under the 1960 Act, having been affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench, the finding cannot be questioned in any collateral proceedings. The finding of the division Bench was binding on the learned Single Judge and is binding on this bench which is a Bench of co-ordinate strength. 34. THE submission of Mr. Prasenjit Bose, appearing on behalf of the appellant State, that the award of the Tribunal included compensation for the disputed properties is patently unsustainable, the same being contrary to findings and/or observations expressly recorded in the award. There may be no estoppel against law, as rightly argued by Mr, prasenjit Bose. An erroneous concession cannot change the law. The issue of whether the disputed properties could have vested in the appellant State is, however, not a pure issue of law. While the scope of the vesting provisions of the 1960 Act may be an issue of law, which specific properties would vest and which would not, is related to the factual issue of the nature of user of the properties. There was a clear admission of the fact that the disputed properties were never used or intended to be used in connection with production or supply of gas. 35. IN any event, the Tribunal, upon consideration of voluminous evidence, arrived at the clear finding, that it could not determine compensation in respect of the disputed properties, which were neither used nor intended to be used for production and supply of gas and had not, therefore, vested under the 1960 Act. 36. THE learned Single Judge rightly observed that the right to property was a constitutional right. In fact, when possession of the disputed properties was taken, the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (f) read with Article 31 of the Constitution of India. 36. THE learned Single Judge rightly observed that the right to property was a constitutional right. In fact, when possession of the disputed properties was taken, the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (f) read with Article 31 of the Constitution of India. At the material time when the said 1960 Act was enacted and enforced Article 31 (2) provided as follows : " (2) No property shall be computsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned and either fixes the amount of the compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given; and no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate. " 37. ARTICLE 31 (2) was amended by the Constitution (Twenty Fifth) Amendment Act, 1971. Article 31 (2) as amended in 1971, provided as follows : " (2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for acquisition or requisitioning of the property for an amount which may be fixed by such law or which may be determined in accordance with such principles and given in such manner as may be specified in such law; and no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the amount so fixed or determined is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash : provided that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of Article 30, the state shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause". 38. THE Constitution (Forty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978 deleted articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 and instead inserted Article 300a which provides as follows: "300a. 38. THE Constitution (Forty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1978 deleted articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 and instead inserted Article 300a which provides as follows: "300a. Persons not be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. " Even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, after the forty fourth amendment, it is still a constitutional right. No person can be deprived of property except by authority of law. 39. HAVING found that the appellant State had not been able to point out the law under which the State had taken or remained in possession of the disputed properties, and rightly so, the learned Judge had to direct the State to either return the disputed properties or acquire the same in accordance with law and pay compensation. The appeal of the appellant State is without merit. 40. THERE being a Constitutional embargo since the inception of the constitution, the State could never have deprived a person of property, without specific authority of law enacted by a competent legislature, no matter how laudable, the motive behind such deprivation might be. In case of dispossession, except by authority of law, the owner might obtain restoration of possession, by proceeding for a writ of mandamus, as held by the Supreme Court in Wazir chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 415 . The observations of the learned Judge, that the purposes for which the disputed properties were used, brought the same within the definition of "undertaking of the company" was unnecessary and uncalled for, the same being contrary to the stand of the parties themselves before the Tribunal, and in any case, not supported by the evidence before the Tribunal and other materials on record. The attention of the learned Single Judge was perhaps not drawn-to transfer of some of the disputed properties to other organizations/ departments of the Government. 41. MOREOVER, as observed by the learned Single Judge, and re-affirmed by us, the finding of the Tribunal, which stands confirmed in appeal, could not be reopened in-writ proceedings initiated by the respondents, or in this appeal. 42. MR. 41. MOREOVER, as observed by the learned Single Judge, and re-affirmed by us, the finding of the Tribunal, which stands confirmed in appeal, could not be reopened in-writ proceedings initiated by the respondents, or in this appeal. 42. MR. Anindya Kumar Mitra appearing on behalf of the respondents, who as stated above, have filed a cross-appeal, submits that the learned Single judge erred in directing the Land Acquisition Collector to assess compensation as on the date of take over. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra rightly submitted that if the initial take over of the disputed properties was without authority of law, the Company was entitled to return of the disputed properties, along with compensation for being deprived of the use and enjoyment thereof, from the date of take over till the date of return. 43. IN a case where a person is dispossessed from or otherwise deprived of his property by the State, the Court is to examine whether the deprivation is with authority of law. In this case, having regard to Article 31 (2)of the Constitution, as it stood on the date of the take over of the disputed properties, the Court was required to see if the property was acquired or requisitioned for a public purpose, by authority of a law, which provided for compensation. 44. IF upon scrutiny, the Court found that the deprivation was in accordance with law that provided for some compensation, whether or not that compensation was adequate, the Court would have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. In this case, the learned Single Judge rightly found that the disputed properties had not been taken over in accordance with law, and accordingly allowed the writ application. Having done so, the learned Single Judge, in our view, erred in permitting the Appellant to retain the disputed properties upon payment of compensation calculated as on the date of take over, with interest thereon, thereby legalizing with retrospective effect, a patently unconstitutional acquisition of immovable properties, which was non est in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge could have, at best, granted leave to the appellant State to acquire the disputed properties in accordance with law, within a stipulated time limit, if the same were required for public purpose. 45. The learned Single Judge could have, at best, granted leave to the appellant State to acquire the disputed properties in accordance with law, within a stipulated time limit, if the same were required for public purpose. 45. WE thus allow the cross-appeal in part and modify the judgment and order under appeal, by directing the appellant State to return the disputed properties except for the portion of the leasehold land at Taratalla that has been surrendered to Kolkata Port Trust within six weeks from date. 46. THE Appellant State may, however, acquire the disputed properties in accordance with law, upon payment of compensation, should the appellant state require the same for any public purpose, provided the acquisition proceedings are initiated within six weeks from date and completed within two years thereafter. The acquisition will not absolve the appellant State of its liability to damages for unauthorized dispossession of the Company from its properties. The Company may, if so advised, initiate proceedings for damages against the appellant State for unauthorized dispossession including damages for unauthorized surrender and/or transfer of any leasehold and/or free hold properties that did not constitute the 'undertaking of the company within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the said 1960 Act. 47. MR. Mitra has not pressed the claim of the respondents to payment of Rs. 66 lakhs odd allegedly realized by the appellant State on account of book debts of the Company, after take over of its management under the said 1960 Act, and we do not deem it necessary to deal with the same. In any case the Company had filed a suit inter alia claiming the said amount. 48. THE appeal and the cross objection are thus disposed of.