Judgment :- Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. These three appeals arise out of three writ petitions which were dismissed by a common judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court. We have heard these three appeals analogously since the facts are similar and the questions of law involved therein are identical and furthermore, the said appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants herein purchased the lands in question by executing several registered Deeds of Conveyance during the period commencing on and from 1985. From the records, we find that the lands in question were requisitioned under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act II of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act II of 1948) on 23rd September, 1975. The possession of the lands in question was handed over to Eastern Coalfields Limited on 18th June, 1976. The said lands were thereafter acquired under Section 4 (1a) of the aforesaid Act II of 1948 by publishing notification in the Calcutta Gazette dated 1st December, 1988. However, no award has yet been passed in respect of the aforesaid lands. The appellants/writ petitioners herein by filing the writ petitions before this Court prayed for issuing appropriate directions on the respondent authorities for releasing the acquired lands in question after quashing the acquisition proceedings since no award has yet been passed in respect of the said land. The writ petitioners also prayed for compensation for depriving them of their right to enjoy the landed property in question. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order under appeal rejected the claims of the writ petitioners on the ground of delay in moving the writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. While dismissing the writ petitions the learned Single Judge also held that the writ petitioners are post-vesting purchasers. Considering the submissions of the learned advocate of the respective parties and going through the available documents we find that the lands in question were requisitioned under Section 3 of Act II of 1948 and subsequently, possession of the same were handed over to Eastern Coalfields Limited. It also appears that a notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 was published in the official gazette on 1st December, 1988. Undisputedly, no award has been declared under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act II of 1948. It also appears that a notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 was published in the official gazette on 1st December, 1988. Undisputedly, no award has been declared under Section 7A of the aforesaid Act II of 1948. The Land Acquisition Case being L.A. Case No. 45R/75-76 lapsed since the said L.A. Case was not processed by the Land Acquisition Collector due to non-placement of funds by the requiring body. As a matter of fact, the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan under Memo dated 21st June, 2011 informed the appellants herein as hereunder : Government of West Bengal Office of the Collector, Burdwan L. A. Section Date :-21/06/2011 Memo No.………..L. A./Sqd-V/11 To, 1) Sri Kalicharan Bhakat, S/O-Ltd. Teja Bhakat 2) Smt. Mandodari Debi Bhakat, W/O-Kalicharan Bhakat 3) Sri Sanjit Bhakat, S/O-Sri Kalicharan Bhakat. All of Village – Saldanga Bhaktapara, P.O. –Ranigung, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713347. Sub: Ownership of Land in connection with L.A. Case No. 45R/75-76. Ref: Your Advocate’s Letter No. Nil dated 20-04-2011. With reference to above the undersigned is to inform that in mouza-Searsole, J.L. No. 17, P.S.-Raniganj, R.S. Plot Nos. 610, 613 & 613/2495 have been acquired with respective area of 0.30 acre, 2.89 acres and 0.84 acre as per proviso of L.A. Act –II1894. But as the R. B., Eastern Coalfields Limited, has not placed the fund so this office is not in a position to proceed further. Hence, the noted L.A. case is lying pending. Sd/- L.A. Collector, Burdwan Sqd-V An important document being Memo No. 3663 L.A./Sqd.-V/10 dated 20/08/2010 has been disclosed by the State Respondents in the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed in connection with the Stay Application. In the aforesaid Memo dated 20/08/2010 Collector, Burdwan specifically admitted that the Land Acquisition Case in question has lapsed. The aforesaid Memo dated 20th August, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow :- Govt. of West Bengal Office of the Collector, Burdwan Land Acquisition Section Date :-20/08/2010 Memo No. 3663 L. A./Sqd-V/10 To The Chief Managing Director (Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Sanctoria, P.O. –Disergorh, Dist. –Burdwan, Pin – 713333. Sub: Placement of fund relating to L.A. Case No. 45R/73-74. Project: Depillaring operation of Searsole Colliery. Sir, This is to inform you that a proposal for acquisition of 11.48 Acres of Land in Mouza – Searsole for the project as mentioned above was initiated at your instance by the L.A. Collector, Burdwan as per provision of L.A. Act-II, 1948. Sub: Placement of fund relating to L.A. Case No. 45R/73-74. Project: Depillaring operation of Searsole Colliery. Sir, This is to inform you that a proposal for acquisition of 11.48 Acres of Land in Mouza – Searsole for the project as mentioned above was initiated at your instance by the L.A. Collector, Burdwan as per provision of L.A. Act-II, 1948. The possession for the said area was delivered to R.B. (E.C.L. authority, Satgram area) on 18-06-1976. The Notification u/s 4 (1a) was published in the Gazette on 12-12-1988. The L.A. Case was not processed due to non-placement of requisite fund inspite of several correspondences. The fund amounting to Rs. 504815.00 was placed by the E.C.L. authority on 26-06-1997 i.e. after the expiry of life-time of L.A. Act-II, 1948, 31-03-1997, as a result the L.A. Case has been lapsed. (Emphasis Supplied) Now, the Land losers are pressing hard for payment of compensation. The Land is under your control since the date of possession (i.e. 18-06-1976). Now, for making payment to the land losers the L.A. Case bearing No. 45R/73-74 is to be revived as per provision of Sec 9 (3B) of L.A. Amendment Act. ’99. An estimate amounting to Rs. 858575.00 has been assessed to dispose of the L.A. Case taking tentative date of award as on 08-12-2010. In this connection, this is to further add that fund amounting to Rs. 504815.00 has been placed at the disposal of the L.A. Collector, Burdwan already. Residual fund amounting to Rs. 353760.00 is required for settlement of the issue/disposal of the L.A. Case. Under the circumstances stated above, your kind intervention is required for placement of fund amounting to Rs. 353760.00 immediately for the disposal of the L.A. Case. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Collector, Burdwan Since the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed, the appellants herein claimed release of the lands in question which had vested in the State in view of the publication of the notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 and should be divested in favour of the appellants/writ petitioners due to non-publication of award within the specified period in terms of Section 7A of the Act II of 1948 as amended by West Bengal Act XXIV of 1996. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners referred to the Special Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners referred to the Special Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal, reported in 2011 (3) CLJ (Cal) 483 and submitted that the proceeding in which the notice under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II of 1948 was published prior to 31st March, 1992 and in respect of which no award had been passed by 31st March, 1995, that notice had already lapsed. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that by reason of insertion of Section 7A in 1948 Act, the period of declaring the award has been fixed and when no award has been declared within the prescribed period, the entire Land Acquisition Proceeding would lapse. Mr. Amal Das, learned Advocate of the respondent State of West Bengal however, submitted that in order to avoid the dictum of the aforesaid Special Bench judgment State has enacted the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1997. Mr. Das referred to Section 2 (2) of the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 wherein following proviso has been added to the second proviso of Sub-Section 3 (B) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :- “Provided also that in respect of acquisition of land made in accordance with the provisions of law in force prior to coming into force of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and subsequently notice issued and published under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, as re-enacted by the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Re-enacting Act, 1977, but lapsed, such notice shall be deemed to be valid and the process of acquisition shall be concluded within the British Calendar year 2015 in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3B) of this section.” Relying on the said proviso, Mr. Das submitted that the proceeding which had lapsed pursuant to the Special Bench judgment of this Court would revive upto 2015. Mr. Das further submitted that in view of the revival of the proceeding the land in question would still remain vested in the State and the State can declare the award in respect of the said property within 2015 as mentioned in the aforesaid proviso. Mr. Das further submitted that in view of the revival of the proceeding the land in question would still remain vested in the State and the State can declare the award in respect of the said property within 2015 as mentioned in the aforesaid proviso. Mr. Ashok De, learned senior counsel of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) opposed the claims of the appellants on the ground of limitation. Mr. De submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as the writ petitioners filed the said writ petition before this Court after a long lapse of 34 years. The learned advocate representing the appellants opposed the aforesaid claims of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. De submitted that by reason of long occupation and/or possession of the lands in question ECL has now become the owner of the lands in question in view of the Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It has also been submitted that since no proceeding was initiated within 12 years from the date of possession, the ECL has become the owner of the lands in question by way of adverse possession. Mr. De also submitted that the Eastern Coalfields Limited has acquired the title in respect of the lands in question by way of adverse possession following the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 460 Para-5. Mr. De further submitted that the proceeding which stood lapsed in view of the judgment of the Special Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors., reported in 2011 (3) CLJ (Cal) 483 has revived in view of the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2011 by enacting the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011. The learned advocate representing the appellants however, submitted that the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 has come into force with effect from 1st April, 1997 and in view of the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. The learned advocate representing the appellants however, submitted that the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 has come into force with effect from 1st April, 1997 and in view of the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra), the notice under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II of 1948 issued prior to 31st March, 1992 would lapse on 31st March, 1995 since the Amending Act of 1997 did not make any provision for revival of the notice which stood lapsed. The learned counsel representing the appellants further submitted that the writ petitions filed before this Court inter alia praying for releasing the lands in question were not hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act since the aforesaid writ petitions were filed on 26th August, 2011 i.e. within two months from the date of judicial pronouncement of the Special Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra) on 17th June, 2011. In the aforesaid judgment Special Bench of this Court held that the notice of vesting under Section 4 (1a) of the Act II, 1948 would lapse if the same was issued prior to 31st March, 1992 and no award had been passed by 31st March, 1995 and the said lapsed notice could not be revived by the Amendment Act of 1997, as no provision has been made in the Amendment Act of 1997 for revival of the lapsed notice. The learned counsel of the appellants submitted that in view of the aforesaid Special Bench judgment, notice of vesting issued under Section 4 (1a) of Act II, 1948 stood lapsed and the requiring body namely, ECL has no authority to remain in possession of the lands in question. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that in view of filing of the writ petition within the period of limitation, there cannot be any acquisition of title by way of adverse possession as has been claimed on behalf of the Easter Coalfields Limited. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that in order to establish the claim of adverse possession one must be in actual, physical, continuous and uninterrupted possession and in peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question for a period of 12 years and to that effect specific pleading is required. Mr. Chatterjee also submitted that in order to establish the claim of adverse possession one must be in actual, physical, continuous and uninterrupted possession and in peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question for a period of 12 years and to that effect specific pleading is required. In the instant case ECL Authority being the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 not only failed to make any specific pleading regarding claim of adverse possession of the lands in question in their Affidavit in Opposition as well as in Supplementary Affidavit but also failed to prove that they have been in actual physical, continuous, uninterrupted possession and in peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question since 1976 except paper possession. Mr. Chatterjee referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors,, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 404 . Relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment are set out hereinbelow :- “31. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. It is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession…………………. ………………………………………………………..” “45. If the protectors of law become the grabbers of the property (land and building), then, people will be left with no protection and there would be a total anarchy in the entire country. It is indeed a very disturbing and dangerous trend. In our considered view, it must be arrested without further loss of time in the larger public interest. No government department, public undertaking, and much less the Police Department should be permitted to perfect the title of the land or building by invoking the provisions of adverse possession and grab the property of its own citizens in the manner that has been done in this case.” We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Chatterjee. The judgment relied upon by Mr. De in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. Chatterjee. The judgment relied upon by Mr. De in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. In the present case, possession was not taken on the basis of any void document and the acquisition notice lapsed due to nonpublication of award within 31st March, 1995 pursuant to the decision of the Special Bench of this Court pronounced on 17th June, 2011 in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra). Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel of this Court has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in order to decide the issues raised in these appeals. Mr. Mukherjee has addressed us on the implications of the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 in respect of the acquisition notification issued and published under Section 4 (1a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the West Bengal Act II of 1948). Mr. Mukherjee referred to the preamble to the aforesaid West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act 2011 which reads as hereunder :- “WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to West Bengal, and the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 and to validate the action taken thereto and in the manner hereinafter appearing.” Therefore, the aforesaid Act of 2011 does not profess to deal with or amend the West Bengal Act II of 1948 which was enacted as a temporary Act and the life of the said Act was extended from time to time. The last of such extension was granted providing for its expiry on 31st March, 1997. The last of such extension was granted providing for its expiry on 31st March, 1997. The preamble of Act II of 1948 reads as hereunder :- “WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the requisition and speedy acquisition of land for the purposes of maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community increasing employment opportunities for the people by establishing commercial estates and industrial estates in different areas, providing proper facilities for transport, communication, irrigation or drainage and for the creation of better living conditions in urban or rural areas by the construction or re-construction of dwelling places in such areas or for purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto.” Section 3 of Act II of 1948 empowered the State Government to requisition any land by an order in writing and to make such further orders as are necessary or expedient in connection with the requisition. Section 4 (1a) of the said Act II of 1948 provides :- “4 (1a). The State Government may acquire any land requisitioned under section 3 by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette that such land is required for a public purpose referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 3.” Section 4 (2) of aforesaid Act II of 1948 provides as hereunder :- “2. Where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned land shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all incumbrances and the period of requisition of such land shall end.” Thus, the Acquisition under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 could be made only in respect of Land Requisitioned under Section 3. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that a notification under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 sought to bring about a qualitative change in the nature and character of possession of the State. Requisitioned land became the acquired land vested in the State. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (West Bengal Act XXV of 1996) enacted with retrospective effect. Referring to Sub-Section 2 of Section 1 of the said 1996 Act, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the said Act deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1994. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (West Bengal Act XXV of 1996) enacted with retrospective effect. Referring to Sub-Section 2 of Section 1 of the said 1996 Act, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the said Act deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1994. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to Section 3 of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1996 which provided for insertion to Section 7A after Section of the Act II of 1948. The aforesaid Section 7A is set out hereunder :- “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 Ben. Act 14 of 1994), the award shall be made within a period of one year from the date of commencement of that Act (31.3.94).” Subsequently, another Amendment Act namely, Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 was passed which brought major change under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1997 two new Sub-Sections namely, Section 3A and Section 3B were inserted after Sub-Section 3 of Section 9 of the Principal Act. In view of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1997 two new Sub-Sections namely, Section 3A and Section 3B were inserted after Sub-Section 3 of Section 9 of the Principal Act. Section 3 of the aforesaid Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 is set out hereunder : In Section 9 of the principal Act, after sub-section (3) the following sub-sections shall be inserted : (3A) the Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on all such persons known or believed to be interested in any land or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, the possession whereof has already been taken on requisition under section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to in this section as the said Act), as re-enacted by the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Re-enacting Act, 1977, and , in every such case, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4, section 5, section 5A, section 6, section 7 and section 8 of this Act shall be deemed to have been complied with : provided that the date of notice under this subsection shall be the date of reference for the purpose of determining the value of such land under this Act : Provided further that when the Collector has made an award under section 11 in respect of any such land, such land shall, upon such award, vest absolutely in the Government, free of all encumbrances. (3B) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on all such persons known or believed to be interested in any land, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, the possession whereof has already been taken on requisition under section 3 of the said Act, and notice for acquisition of such land has also been published under subsection (1a) of section 4 of the said Act, and, in every such case, the provisions of section 4, section 5, section 5A, section 6, section 7, section 8 and section 16 of this Act shall be deemed to have been complied with : Provided that the date of publication of notice under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of the said Act shall be the date of reference for the purpose3 of determining the value of such land under this Act : Provided further that in every such case, the Collector shall make an award under section 11 in respect of such land only for the purpose of payment of due compensation to the persons interested in such land where such land has, upon the Collector taking possession thereof, already vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the effect of the West Bengal Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997 in relation to West Bengal Act II of 1948 has been considered at length in the Special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra). Mr. Mukherjee referred to Paragraphs 12 & 13 of the aforesaid judgment which are set out hereinbelow :- “12. Thus, the effect of the LAND ACQUISITION (WEST BENGAL AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997 which came into operation on the midnight between March 31, 1997 and April 1, 1997 prevented all those notices under subsection (1a) of Section 4 issued after April 1, 1994 from being lapsed by giving scope of revival by way of a notice under sub-section (3B) of Section 9 of the said Act if award had not been passed within three years from the date of publication of such notice and which would otherwise lapse if the said Act of 1997 would not come into operation at the midnight of March 31, 1997.” “Para-13. However, in respect of those notices under sub-section (1a) of Section 4 which were issued prior to March 31, 1992 and in respect of which no award had been passed by March 31, 1995, those notices had already lapsed and by the Amendment Act, 1997 of the Land Acquisition Act by the West Bengal Legislature, no provision has been made for revival of the lapsed notices which stood lapsed already on March 31, 1997 for non-compliance of the provision of Amendment Act of 1996. By the Amendment Act of 1997 only those notices under sub-section (1a) of Section 4 which would have lapsed on the midnight of March 31, 1997 or on subsequent dates, have been saved.” Mr. Mukherjee also referred to Paragraph 16 of the Special Bench judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra) wherein the said Special Bench disagreed with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Soumendra Mohan Dey, reported in ILR 2003 (1) Cal 410. Paragraph 16 of the Special Bench judgment is set out hereinbelow :- “16. With great respect to the said Division Bench, we are unable to accept the above interpretation of the Amendment Act of 1996. Although the said Act was published in Calcutta Gazette on October 8, 1996, the Division Bench totally overlooked that in subsection (2) of Section 1 of that very Amending Act, it was specifically provided that the said Amending Act should be deemed to have come into force on April 1, 1994. Moreover, after the proviso to Section 7A, the date “(31.3.1994)” was specifically mentioned after the word “that Act” which totally escaped the notice of the said Division Bench as would appear from the quotation of the said proviso. Thus, there is no scope of interpreting the words “that Act” as the Act of 1996 by ignoring the date of commencement of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1994 specifically mentioned at the end of proviso. Where the intention of the legislature was clear, there is no scope of ignoring the specific language employed in the Statute. Where the intention of the legislature was clear, there is no scope of ignoring the specific language employed in the Statute. Thus, by the Amendment Act of 1996, the proceedings in respect of the notices given prior to March 31, 1992 stood lapsed if award was not published within one year from March 31, 1994. We, thus, find that the learned Referring Division Benches of this Court rightly refused to follow the view taken in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Soumendra Mohan Dey (supra).” Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the West Bengal Land Acquisition Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 has been given a retrospective effect. Section 1 (2) of the said Act of 2011 which provides :- “1.(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 1997.” Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the aforesaid Act of 2011 is no doubt a validating Act and its validating operation starts with effect from 1st April, 1997. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that the said Act of 2011 does not deal with anything which happened prior to 1st April, 1997. According to Mr. Mukherjee, it does not deal with the operation of Section 7A of Act II of 1948 prior to 1st April, 1997. In the instant case the requisition was made under Section 3 on 23rd September, 1975. Thereafter a notification under Section 4 (1a) was issued and published on 1st December, 1988. As held by the Special Bench in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sabita Mondal & Ors. (supra) that when no Award was made within a period of one year from 31st March, 1994 i.e. the date of coming into force of 1996 Act the proceeding for acquisition upon a notification under Section 4 (1a) stood lapsed. It goes without saying that the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 dealt with cases of requisition and acquisition which suffered the consequences of the expiry of a temporary Act. The said Act of 1997 by incorporating Section 9 (3A) and 9 (3B) manifestly did not deal with basis of acquisition which suffered a lapse under Section 7A inserted by 1996 Act. Section 2 of Act XXI of 2011 introduces an amendment by adding a proviso to the second proviso of sub-section 3B by Section 9. The said Act of 1997 by incorporating Section 9 (3A) and 9 (3B) manifestly did not deal with basis of acquisition which suffered a lapse under Section 7A inserted by 1996 Act. Section 2 of Act XXI of 2011 introduces an amendment by adding a proviso to the second proviso of sub-section 3B by Section 9. The added proviso reads as follows :- “In sub-section (3B) of section 9 of the principal Act, to the second proviso, the following proviso shall be added :- Provided also that in respect of acquisition of land made in accordance with the provisions of law in force prior to coming into force of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and subsequently notice issued and published under sub-section (1a) of section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, as reenacted by the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Re-enacting Act, 1977, but lapsed, such notice shall be deemed to be valid and the process of acquisition shall be concluded within the British Calendar year 2015 in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3B) of this section.” The proviso itself makes it clear that it “applies to acquisition of land made in accordance with the provisions of law in force prior to coming into force of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 and subsequently notice issued and published under sub-section 1(a) of section 4 of Act II of 1948 but lapsed ………………………………..” The second proviso clearly indicates that the acquisition proceeding referred to therein was one which have been initiated on or before 31st March, 1997. It could be so initiated only under Act II of 1948 because the provisions of the said Act II of 1948 could be taken to be the provision of law in force prior to coming into force of the 1997 Act. The second part of the proviso deals with the acquisition notification under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 and refers to this notification as one in respect of which subsequently notice issued and published under sub-section (1a) of Section 4 of Act II of 1948. In the second part of the proviso there is a reference to lapsing. Obviously, the lapsing referred to is the lapsing of the acquisition proceeding covered by Section 4 (1a) notification. In the second part of the proviso there is a reference to lapsing. Obviously, the lapsing referred to is the lapsing of the acquisition proceeding covered by Section 4 (1a) notification. There could not be a Section 4 (1a) notification after expiry of Act II of 1948. Section 9 (3B) of 1997 Act also refers to such acquisition notification under Act II of 1948. It seems that Act XXI of 2011 and by antedating of the commencement of the 1997 Act the interregnum between the expiry of the 1948 Act and the commencement of the 1997 Act is sought to be removed, and the lapsing of any notification is sought to be validated and revived. The 2011 Act (West Bengal Act XXI of 2011) has substituted Sub-Section 2 of Section 1 of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 in the following manner :- “1.(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st day of April, 1997.” The amendment of the 1997 Act also leaves no room for doubt that the situations arising out of the expiry of Act II of 1948 and prevailing on 1st April, 1997 only were being dealt with. The West Bengal Act XXI of 2011 has a validating Section namely, Section 4. “4. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority :- (i) the notice issued under the principal Act as amended by Section 2 above, or (ii) the notice issued under the principal Act as amended by Section 3 above, as the case may be, shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have always been validly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the said Act and this Act, and accordingly (a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for claiming compensation; (b) no court or other authority shall enforce any decree or order directing payment of compensation; (c) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been taken or done under the Principal Act shall be deemed to be, and to have always been for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the said amendment had been in force at all material times. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (1) of this Section shall be construed as preventing any person from claiming compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 23, read with first proviso to sub-section (3B) of section 9, of the principal Act, as amended by this Act.” It is significant to note that the validation is confined to notice issued under the Principal Act i.e. under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as amended by Section 2 of the 2011 Act inserting the second proviso and also as amended by the Section 3 of the 2011 Act antedating the commencement of 1997 Act are sought to be validated. There is no question of validating any lapsed proceeding under Section 7A of Act II of 1948 and by no imagination the 2011 Act having its retrospective commencement from 1st April, 1997 can be said to have revised and validated an acquisition which has lapsed on or before 31st March, 1995 by operation of Section 7A of Act II of 1948. It is to be noted that the laws providing for compulsory acquisition are confiscatory in nature depriving a person of his property without his consent and according to settled principles such laws are to be strictly construed and applied. The learned Single Judge however, by the impugned judgment and order under appeal dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay which we are unable to accept since the impugned acquisition notice issued under Section 4 (1a) stood lapsed due to non-publication of award by 31st March, 1995 as declared by the Special Bench on 17th June, 2011 and the writ petition was filed before this Court in the month of August, 2011. The learned Single Judge also held that the appellants/writ petitioners herein are post vesting purchasers which is not factually correct since the sale deeds in respect of most of the plots in question were executed in the year 1985 before the issuance of the notice of acquisition under Section 4 (1a). The notice of acquisition under Section 4 (1a) was issued on 1st December, 1988. The notice of acquisition under Section 4 (1a) was issued on 1st December, 1988. In any event, notice of acquisition issued in the present case under Section 4 (1a) had already lapsed by operation of law since the said notice under Section 4 (1a) was admittedly issued before 31st March, 1992 and no award had been passed by 31st March, 1995. In view of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 7A of Act II of 1948, the title of the original owner revives. Even if any portion of the land covered by the notification issued under Section 4 (1a) was transferred subsequently to any third person namely, in favour of any one of the present appellants/petitioners then also after lapsing of the acquisition proceedings title of the original owner would revive. The subsequent purchaser and the original owner will thereafter be entitled to work out their respective rights in respect of the said land and we are not inclined to decide the same at this stage since it is beyond the scope of the present appeal. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The requiring body namely, the Eastern Coalfields Limited cannot remain in possession of the lands in question after lapsing of the acquisition proceedings as the title of the original owner in respect of the lands in question has revived after lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 7A of Act II of 1948. The Eastern Coalfields Limited Authorities are therefore, directed to vacate the lands in question forthwith and make payment of the adequate compensation in accordance with law to the original owners of the said lands through the concerned Land Acquisition Collector for the period under occupation. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of these appeals along with the connected applications without any order as to costs. We record our sincere appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae.