JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B Banerjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Authorities. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) authorities are represented by the learned senior counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury. 2. The two cases relate to acquisition of land measuring 17 kathas under the RS Patta No. 34 in Dag No.205 Kha of village Bahadurpur Ph., Mouza Udharbond of Cachar District. This was a small portion of the larger acquired for the BG Rail Fed Depot at Silchar, to be constructed by the IOCL. The notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’), was issued on 14.5.2012 (published in the Gazette on 23.5.2012), whereby the Collector invited objections from the land owners/persons interested. This was followed by the advertisement of the acquisition notification in the Sentinel and the Doinik Prantajyoti newspapers on 25.7.2012. Thereafter the Addl. D.C., Cachar informed the Government on 19.1.2013 that none had filed objection to the Section 4(1) Notification and that the requiring department i.e. IOCL had deposited the compensation amount. When this communication was received from the Addl. D.C., the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act was made on 29.1.2013 and this was published in the Gazette on 4.2.2013. 3. The challenger to the acquisition Md. Moinul Haque Laskar @ Moinul Uddin Laskar, who filed the WP(C) No. 7517/2013, pleaded that he purchased about 1 Bigha land on 13.5.1992 from Haji Azizur Rahman Laskar and Md. Mahibur Rahman Laskar and the sale deed disclosed that the concerned transaction was made on the basis of permission accorded by the D.C., Cachar on 30.4.1992. But mutation of the purchased land was done only on 21.5.2013 (21 years later). Immediately after his name was mutated in the revenue records on 21.5.2013, Moinul Haque Laskar sold this land to Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha, who is the petitioner in the WP(C) No. 2061/2014. The sale deed executed on 2.8.2013 reflect the consideration amount as Rs.1,60,000/- and this deed was registered with the permission granted by the DC, Cachar on 29.6.2013. 4. Immediately after his name was mutated in the revenue records on 21.5.2013, Moinul Haque Laskar sold this land to Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha, who is the petitioner in the WP(C) No. 2061/2014. The sale deed executed on 2.8.2013 reflect the consideration amount as Rs.1,60,000/- and this deed was registered with the permission granted by the DC, Cachar on 29.6.2013. 4. As the concerned land was subjected to acquisition through the Section 4 Notification issued on 23.5.2012, in the L.A. Case No.10/2011-12, the petitioner challenge the acquisition of the land by contending that they were unaware about the acquisition and therefore the bonafide of the process is questioned by the petitioners. 5. While acknowledging that the concerned land was sold away to Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha on 2.8.2013, the vendor apprehended that the purchaser may initiate criminal proceeding against the vendor and therefore he pressed for the interim order. This Court while issuing returnable notice on 20.12.2013, after considering the apprehension projected from the vendor’s side, ordered suspension of the proceeding in the L.A. Case No.10/2011-12, in so far as it relates to the petitioner’s land. 6. The purchaser of the land Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha, herself filed the WP(C) No. 2061/2014, where it was stated that the purchaser subsequently learnt that when the land was sold on 2.8.2013, the vendor’s land stood acquired under the notification issued under the 1894 Act. The purchaser contends that she was unaware of the acquisition and therefore the steps under the 1894 Act, is contended to be a nullity and on that basis, the purchaser seeks direction on the respondents, to exclude the purchased land from the acquisition process. In the 2nd case, returnable notice was issued on 11.4.2014, but unlike in the WP(C) No. 7517/2013, interim order was not passed by the Court. 7. Aggrieved by the interim order, operating for the small land area of the petitioners, which is a fraction of the 130 Bighas of land acquired for the BG Rail Fed Depot and particularly when none of the other land owners have challenged the process, the IOCL has filed the I.A. No.2579/2015, for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2013. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submits that the construction of the oil Depot at Silchar is intended to augment the storage and supply network to meet the expanding requirement of petroleum products in the Barak Valley region and the Silchar Depot will ensure un-interrupted supply of petroleum products for all the consumers in the area. In fact the present arrangement of transportation of petroleum products by road is resulting in avoidable expenditure and the transportation cost is likely to come down substantially when the Rail Fed Depot become operational. But because of the interim order operating on 17 katha land, whereas the rest of the acquired land measuring about 130 Bighas is already under possession of the IOCL, the completion of the public project is adversely affected since the petitioner’s land is on the pathway to the project site and this small patch is causing serious impediments in the execution of the project work. 9.1. On behalf of the two writ petitioners, Mr. B. Banerjee, the learned senior counsel submits that public notice was never served on the land owner as is contemplated under the 1894 Act and since further legal steps after the Section 6 Notification, are yet to be taken, it is contended that payment of lesser compensation under the 1894 Act would not be justified and the land owner should be paid for his loss under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’). 9.2. The senior counsel submits that the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been made and physical possession of the land is still with the petitioners who are yet to receive the compensation and therefore the proceeding under the old Act is deemed to have lapsed and therefore it is argued that acquisition proceeding should be started afresh under the 2013 Act. 10. Representing the acquiring authorities, Ms. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel submits that the Notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act were published in the Gazette and the news paper advertisement of the Section 4 Notification was also made. She further submits that despite the circulation of public notice in the locality, the land owners never objected and therefore the Govt. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel submits that the Notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act were published in the Gazette and the news paper advertisement of the Section 4 Notification was also made. She further submits that despite the circulation of public notice in the locality, the land owners never objected and therefore the Govt. Advocate submits that the Court should vacate with the interim order, operating on the small land area, when the entire project land measuring about 130 Bighas, is under possession of the IOCL. 11. In the additional affidavit of the IOCL in the I.A. No.1057/2015, 3 certificates of possession in respect of the land covered by the L.A. Case No.11/2011-12, L.A. Case No.23/2010-11 and the L.A. Case No.24/2010-11 are annexed and these possession certificates indicate that the Land Acquisition Officer, Silchar had handed over possession of around 129 Bighas of land to the IOCL. Moreover in pursuant to the public hearing afforded on 7.1.2015, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority through their communication dated 30.6.2015 accorded environmental clearance to this project under the E.I.A. Notification, 2006. The sketch map of the project area annexed to the IOCL’s affidavit reflects that the petitioner’s 17 kathas land is standing on the approach road to the project site from the National Highway and it is obvious that work is hampered on account of the interim order operating in the small portion of acquired land. 12. Here the acquisition process was started with the Section 4 Notification of 23.5.2012, well before the mutation of the name of Moinul Haque Laskar on 21.5.2013. In so far as the acquiring authorities are concerned, the notices were issued under the 1894 Act on 23.5.2012 (Section 4) and again on 29.1.2013 (Section 6) and they were meant for the recorded pattadars. But even as a person interested, without mutation also, the purchaser could have objected to the acquisition process but no such objection was ever filed. The records do not disclose whether the recorded pattadars, from whom the petitioner purchased the land, were aware about the acquisition of their land. For the oil depot vast tract of land measuring about 130 Bighas were through 4 Land Acquisition cases and it affected many pattadars. The records do not disclose whether the recorded pattadars, from whom the petitioner purchased the land, were aware about the acquisition of their land. For the oil depot vast tract of land measuring about 130 Bighas were through 4 Land Acquisition cases and it affected many pattadars. There must have been enough awareness in the locality and yet none of the recorded pattadars opposed the acquisition but the petitioners are the only litigants who have challenged the acquisition process. 13. If acquisition compensation is not yet paid for the 17 kathas land under RS Patta No. 34 in Dag No.205 Kha of village Bahadurpur, the same must be disbursed but the question is who amongst the two writ petitioners, is entitled to the acquisition compensation. The concerned land was sold by Moinul Haque Laskar to Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha through the Regd. Sale Deed on 2.8.2013 and the vendor received the consideration amount of Rs.1.6 lakhs, as is reflected in the sale deed. Therefore the right of the vendor to receive compensation gets extinguished through this transaction. On the other hand, by the time the sale was made on 2.8.2013, the acquisition process was already underway on 23.5.2012, through issuance of Notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act. But at that stage, the vendor’s name was not yet mutated in respect of the land purchased by him on 13.5.1992 and the Revenue Record reflected the name of the two original pattadars i.e. Haji Azizur Rahman Laskar and Md. Mahibur Rahman Laskar. But who amongst them can claim compensation need not be addressed in these proceedings, since the challenge here is to the acquisition of the land claimed by the petitioners. 14. The Supreme Court in May George vs. Special Tahsildar, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 98 had declared that when objection to acquisition is for a negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired for a public project, at the behest of only one person, the acquisition proceeding can’t be disturbed even if some irregularities are found in the acquisition process. But nevertheless when the essential steps are left incomplete under the 1894 Act, the land owners/interested persons can certainly expect better compensation under the 2013 Act. In fact when award under Section 11 is not made for the proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act, the payable compensation is to be decided under the 2013 Act. 15. But nevertheless when the essential steps are left incomplete under the 1894 Act, the land owners/interested persons can certainly expect better compensation under the 2013 Act. In fact when award under Section 11 is not made for the proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act, the payable compensation is to be decided under the 2013 Act. 15. In the context of the steps taken towards acquisition and the want of objection from the pattadars/persons interested at the relevant time and bearing in mind the vital necessity for early execution of the large public project, this Court is disinclined to exercise its discretionary power to prevent the takeover of 17 katha land, as this land is a miniscule portion of the large project area, measuring about 130 Bighas. But at the same time, the right to adequate compensation for the affected land owner can’t also be overlooked, if the same has not been paid. Therefore even while not entertaining the challenge to the acquisition process, the right to claim just compensation by the affected land owner is kept intact and it is declared that if compensation has not been disbursed in respect of the land claimed by the petitioners, the determination of the compensation should be made under the 2013 Act. In that event, as Mr. B. Banerjee, the learned senior counsel fairly concedes that the vendor’s right gets extinguished through the sale transaction dated 2.8.2013. In such circumstances, the payment of compensation should be made to the purchaser of the land namely, Smti. Paramita Sen Purkayastha. It is ordered accordingly. 16. With the above order, both cases are disposed of.