Judgment 1. Let this application be treated as on day's list. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the explanation given in this application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out in the application for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 2. We, thus condone the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal. 3. The application is, thus allowed. 4. Instead of disposal of the application, we propose, to here out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list. This appeal is at the instance of State of West Bengal and is directed against an order dated 17th November, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship directed the State of West Bengal to immediately initiate proceeding for compensation for acquisition of the writ petitioner's land and to declare Award and pay compensation in accordance with Award. It was further ordered that in if the requiring body not provide the requisite fund for payment of compensation, in that event, the Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, should make necessary fund available. The Collector was further ordered to pay a sum Rs.20,000/- as costs. 5. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present appeal. 6. The following facts are not in dispute. 7. In August, 1995, several notifications, under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued by the Collector, Malda, stating that lands particulars whereof recorded in the Schedules to the notifications were likely to be needed ''for public purpose, namely, the Construction of retired Embankment of Farakka and to be taken by the Government at the public expense". It was stated in the notification that the provisions of section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be applicable to the proceedings for the acquisition of the lands and that the provisions of section 5A would not apply. 8. It is also not in dispute that the Collector took possession of the land and using those lands the embankment in question was constructed; the case however sought to be made out in the affidavit-i-opposition was that possession of the lands was not banded-over to the requiring body, and that lands were eroded by the raging flooded river. 8. It is also not in dispute that the Collector took possession of the land and using those lands the embankment in question was constructed; the case however sought to be made out in the affidavit-i-opposition was that possession of the lands was not banded-over to the requiring body, and that lands were eroded by the raging flooded river. According to he State of West Bengal since the land had been eroded by river before the acquisition proceedings could be concluded by making and declaring the award and handing over possession of the lands to the requiring body, the petitioners were entitled only to solatium that the Government had decided to pay as a matter of grace. 9. The learned Single Judge, however, has turned down such compensation of the Government and had held that there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under which a person otherwise entitled to compensation for acquisition of his land may be given only solatium and not the compensation determined in accordance of section 23 of the Act. The learned Single Judge ultimately concluded that possession of the land was taken by the Collector and that using such land the appropriate department of the Government constructed the proposed embankment but those were eroded by the river only thereafter and, therefore, in such a case the writ petitioner was entitled to get compensation in accordance with the Act. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials, we agree with the learned Single Judge that admittedly the possession of the land having been taken by the Collector from the writ petitioner in accordance with the provision of the Land. Acquisition Act, there is no scope of denial of payment of compensation simply on the ground that before such land was handed-over to the requiring authority those eroded in the river. 11. We further find that in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the State to assess compensation in terms of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. We Hnd no reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. As regards the last submission of Mrs. 11. We further find that in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the State to assess compensation in terms of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. We Hnd no reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. As regards the last submission of Mrs. Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, on the question of imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/- we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner will be entitled to get interest, solatium etc. in accordance with the provision of Land Acquisition Act and, as such, there was no justification to impose further costs in addition to the schedule amount that will be payable under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. 13. We, therefore, modify the order impugned only to the extent that the State of West Bengal will not require to pay any amount of costs in this proceeding. Parties will bear their own costs all throughout. 14. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 15. In view of the disposal of this appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. 16. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be made available to the learned advocates appearing for the parties within a week.