Order In this petition, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 16.1.2008, passed in W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006. It has been stated that the process of acquisition of the petitioner's land was initiated in Land Acquisition Case No. 6 of 1961-62 and Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 1963-64. In that process, possession of the petitioner's land was taken over by the State. However, final Award of compensation was not passed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had preferred the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006 praying for a direction upon the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding against the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act for awarding due compensation. This Court found that the matter was pretty old as the petitioner had approached this Court after more than four decades. The Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitioner's claim was stale. 2. The petitioner has stated that in fact, the matter was kept pending by the• respondent and the delay was on their part and not on the part of the petitioner. It is further stated that under similar circumstance and fact situation, another writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005* filed by the same petitioner in respect of another piece of land was disposed of by order dated 18.11.2009, remitting the case back to the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector of the District Singhbhum East to issue fresh notices as required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass an Award for compensation in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 3. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the above facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court in absence of proper instructions and W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006 was disposed of by order dated 16.1.2008 under the impression created on the basis of the facts mentioned therein that the delay was on the part of the petitioner, though the matter was kept pending for quite a long time by the respondents. He further submitted that the State has already taken possession of the land long back on 31st March, 1960, which has also been admitted in Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents and the petitioner shall suffer great hardship and loss and injury, if the order dated 18.11.2009, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005* is not reviewed in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances. learned counsel submitted that this Court has already directed for taking fresh steps for acquisition and awarding compensation for the other piece of land of this petitioner and the facts and circumstances being exactly identical in the instant case, the same order may be passed for the ends of justice and the respondents be directed to take steps for proper acquisition and awarding compensation for the land, as has been directed in the order dated 18.11.2009, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005*. 4. Learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the said contentions but has submitted that the delay on the part of the State was due to initiation of a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar land Reforms Act and was not intentional. It has been explained that for the same land, though earlier process of acquisition was initiated but subsequently it was decided by the Revenue Department to initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act for annulling the settlement of the land and for taking over the same by the Government instead of acquiring the land and paying compensation to the petitioner. Subsequently, the said proceeding was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 410 of 1978 and in the said writ application, the proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was quashed by the judgment dated 30th June, 1986. 5. It has been further submitted that the amount of compensation was paid on the basis of the Agreement, though there was no final Award for payment of compensation. Learned Government Advocate, however admitted that order has been passed for fresh assessment of compensation after issuing the required notice under the Land Acquisition Act, in W.P. (C) No. 1546 of 2005* for a piece of land of the same petitioner on the same fact situation. Learned Government Advocate, however admitted that order has been passed for fresh assessment of compensation after issuing the required notice under the Land Acquisition Act, in W.P. (C) No. 1546 of 2005* for a piece of land of the same petitioner on the same fact situation. He further admitted that the Appeal preferred by the State against the said order in L.P.A. No., 567 of 2009 has also been dismissed by order dated 26.10.2010. 6. Considering the said submissions and the facts and circumstances, appearing on record, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as has been given to him in the similar situation in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005* which was denied to him in absence of the relevant facts on record in W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006. 7. In view of the above, the order dated 16.1.2008, passed in W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006 is recalled and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to act in accordance with the directions, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005 also in respect of the land described in W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006. The District Land Acquisition Officer/Collector of the district of Singhbhum East is accordingly, directed to take immediate steps for assessing proper compensation of the aforesaid land in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that any amount paid to the petitioner by way of interim compensation before making the final award shall be adjusted while making payment of the amount of final award. 9. This petition is, allowed in the above said terms.