JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal arises from an order dated 1st September 2017 passed in a writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 against the State of West Bengal. The appellant was the respondent no.10 in the said writ petition (referred to as the private respondent in the impugned order). By the said order, the respondent no. 6, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), was directed to complete the exercise of finalization of a tender dated 29th February 2016 within a period of 9 weeks from the date of communication of order and take necessary action in order to enable the writ petitioner to carry on fishing activity in the water-body. The appellant was given liberty to challenge the order passed by the Special Revenue Officer under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 before the appropriate authority. 2. The issues in the instant appeal revolve around competing rights to a water-body known as “Chhoto O - Boro Paresh bheri”. The writ petitioner, a registered co-operative society, had approached this Court in WP No. 17460(W) of 2017 (in which the impugned judgment was passed) for a direction on the state respondents to issue a possession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the aforesaid water-body located at Mouza Dhapa Manpur in North 24 Parganas. The primary contention of the writ petitioner before the learned First Court was that the writ petitioner had been successful in a tender floated by the state respondents pursuant to an order dated 11th January 2016 passed in an earlier writ petition; WP No. 30473(W) of 2015. In the impugned judgment, the learned First Court came to the following findings: (a) The process of leasing out the water-body was initiated by the State on 6th October 2015. The tender was ultimately floated by the BL & LRO on 29th February 2016. (b) The decision to float a tender in connection with the water-body was not taken on the basis of the order passed by a learned First Court on 11th July 2016 in the earlier writ petition namely WP No. 30473(W) of 2015. This is because submissions were made by the State before learned First Court in the earlier writ petition that the issue of finalization of the tender was already before a five member committee headed by the District Magistrate. This is because submissions were made by the State before learned First Court in the earlier writ petition that the issue of finalization of the tender was already before a five member committee headed by the District Magistrate. The learned First Court in the order dated 11th July 2016 had accordingly directed the five member committee to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible. (c) The procedure adopted by the state respondents for floating the tender in connection with the water-body has no rational nexus with the order dated 11th July 2016. (d) The procedure adopted by the state respondents for leasing out the water-body is not without jurisdiction (as contended by the appellant herein the private respondent before the First Court). (e) The writ petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition and the writ petition was maintainable. (f) On being adjudged the successful bidder of the tender floated by the BL & LRO on 29th February 2016, the writ petitioner was permitted to deposit the statutory amount of Rs.2,75,000/- before the BL & LRO on 11th March 2016. (g) By a process initiated by the Special Revenue Officer for correction of the record of rights under Section 57A read with Section 44 (2A) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, the record of rights was modified treating the water-body as vested in the State of West Bengal. (h) There is no evidence on record to show that the above order was set aside by any higher authority. (i) By reason of the vesting of the water-body in the State and correction of the record of rights with effect from 4th January 1993, the erstwhile owners of the water-body cannot have any right and interest in the said water-body on the date of execution of the lease deeds in 1995. Since the erstwhile owners of the water-body had no right and interest in the water-body in 1995, the appellant / private respondent cannot acquire any interest in the said water-body by virtue of the registered lease deeds executed in 1995. (j) The private respondent / appellant executed the deeds of conveyance in its favour by the erstwhile owners on 16th May 2007 and 18th March 2008 at a consideration of Rs.1/- to evade the clutches of law. (j) The private respondent / appellant executed the deeds of conveyance in its favour by the erstwhile owners on 16th May 2007 and 18th March 2008 at a consideration of Rs.1/- to evade the clutches of law. The appellant has not acquired any interest in the water-body by the deeds of conveyance executed in May, 2007 and March, 2008 as the transferors of the water-body (the erstwhile owner) had no transferable interest in the water-body on the date of execution of the two deeds of conveyance. (k) The orders passed by this Court on 14th May 2015 in WP No. 10299(W) of 2015 and the order dated 18th September 2008 in WP No. 23115(W) of 2008 do not establish the right of the private respondent in the water-body. (l) The appellant, though in possession of the water-body, has no right and interest in the said water-body. No direction can be given to the state respondents to make over possession of the water-body or execute any lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner in connection with the water-body as the tender process has not yet been finalized despite the writ petitioner being the successful bidder. 3. Based on the above findings, the state respondents were directed by the learned First Court to complete the exercise in connection with the tender floated by the BL & LRO within a specified period of time. The state respondent was also given liberty to recover possession of the water-body from the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant was given liberty to challenge the order passed on 4th January 1993 by the Special Revenue Officer under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 4. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the learned First Court did not take into account the documents on record showing the appellant was in possession of “Chhoto O Boro Paresh bheri”. The appellant relies upon a brochure where the property was designated as a “Tank Fishery” exempted under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and an order dated 29th June 1981 passed by this Court in C.O. No. 5966(W) of 1981 in which acquisition proceedings were frowned upon by this Court for the delay and harassment caused to the appellant in the said proceeding. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (private respondent before the First Court), relies on various documents to show that the appellant had always been in possession of “Chhoto O Boro Paresh bheri”. Counsel submits that several orders passed by this Court from August 1973 to September 2011 would show that the ownership and possession of the water-body has always been with the appellant and its predecessors-in-interest. He further submits that the record of rights pertaining to the water-body reveal that the said water-body stood in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and further that the property has been described as “Bheri MachhChash” and the Basus (predecessors-in-interest of the appellant) are recorded as “Dakhalkar” in other words someone who has a right over something. Mr. Mitra submits that deeds of conveyance were registered in favour of the appellant and that the only document relied upon by the State is the order of the BL & LRO who did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the title of the property. It is further submitted that the learned First Court failed to consider the licenses, permissions and electricity bills produced by the appellant establishing that the appellant has been carrying on business of fishing in the said water-body. 6. Counsel urges that the learned First Court could not have proceeded to adjudicate the question of title to the water-body and direct the state respondent to take possession of the same since this was beyond the scope of the writ petition. He submits that the First Court proceeded on the basis of the order passed by the Revenue Officer dated 4th January 1993 by the which the right title and interest of the appellant and/or its predecessors-in-interest was held to have vested in the State as the water-body was found to be a “Riverine Beel” connected to the river “Vidyadhari”. Counsel submits that the basis of such conclusion is a book written by one W.W. Hunter published in 1873. The order of the BL & LRO has also been challenged on the ground that the said order has been issued without notice to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant whose names were recorded in the Record of Rights. 7. The primary submission of Mr. The order of the BL & LRO has also been challenged on the ground that the said order has been issued without notice to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant whose names were recorded in the Record of Rights. 7. The primary submission of Mr. Mitra is that the records of the concerned authority have always reflected the land in question as a tank fishery and never as a riverine beel. He submits that the impugned order amounts to an order of eviction of the appellant from the bheri without due process of law. According to counsel, the learned First Court has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition by adjudicating on the title of the appellant and requiring the State Authorities to dispossess the appellant. 8. Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Advocate General representing the State of West Bengal relies on relevant portions from a book namely “A Statistical Account of Bengal”, Vol. I, Part-1 by W.W. Hunter, published by the West Bengal District Gazetteers, Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta, in the year 1999. Mr. Datta relies on several passages from the book which state, inter-alia, that the river “Vidyadhari” is one of the principal rivers in the 24 Parganas, which is studded with large marshes and swamps marking the course of the rivers flowing through it. He submits that a later map prepared by the Technical Advisor, drawing section, of the Land Reforms Officer, North 24 Parganas in 1992 shows that twenty six bheries were found within the area of Dhapa Manpur where the disputed Tank Fishery (Choto-O-Baro Paresh Bheri) is situated. He urges this court to draw from this and other contemporaneous maps of Mouza Dhapa Manpur which were prepared under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (the Act), that the water-body in question is connected to canals which are branches of the river “Vidyadhari”. He submits that by reason of such, the entire Mouza Dhapa Manpur is a part and parcel of river “Vidyadhari” which branches out into canals and waters the entire area. Mr. Datta submits that a “beel” (water-body) which is connected to a river, remains a part of the river and cannot be claimed by a private person. He relies on Gopeswar Setiar Vs. Assistant Collector, Estates Acquisition reported in, (1961) 66 CalWN 511 on this point. Mr. Datta submits that a “beel” (water-body) which is connected to a river, remains a part of the river and cannot be claimed by a private person. He relies on Gopeswar Setiar Vs. Assistant Collector, Estates Acquisition reported in, (1961) 66 CalWN 511 on this point. He disputes the claim of ownership made by the appellant in the water-body by reason of the deeds of conveyance executed in 2007 and 2008 since the transferors of the land in question could not have had a transferable right in the said land on the date of execution of the deeds, as the land together with the water-body vested in the State from the very beginning. He reduces the right of the appellant to that of a tresspasser who has encroached upon public property. With regard to the contention of the appellant that the water-body was released from acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mr. Datta submits that during preparation of the modified Record of Rights under Section 47 of the Act, the Special Revenue Officer attached to the office of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, North 24 Parganas, had detected an anomaly pertaining to “Choto-O-Baro-Paresh Bheri”. Hence proceedings under Section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, were initiated for revision of the Record of Rights over different plots of Mouza Dhapa Manpur being Miscellaneous case Nos. 20 of 1992 and 21 of 1992. He relies on State of West Bengal and others Vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy and Fisheries Private Limited and another reported in, (1993) Supp4 SCC 674 for the proposition that the State can revise its own records at any point. He further submits that contrary to the allegation made by the appellant, a notification was published under the provisions of the 1953 Act, as acknowledged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal Vs. Arun Kumar Basu reported in, (1997) 5 SCC 317 . He relies upon the aforesaid judgment to submit that vesting takes place by operation of law under Section 5 of the 1953 Act. Arun Kumar Basu reported in, (1997) 5 SCC 317 . He relies upon the aforesaid judgment to submit that vesting takes place by operation of law under Section 5 of the 1953 Act. It is also submitted that proceedings under Section 44 (2A) read with Section 57 of the 1953 Act were initiated by the competent authority to record the name of the State in the records of the Government in respect of lands which already stood vested in the State from the very beginning and that there was no conferment of title by these proceedings. Mr. Datta urges that Miscellaneous Case Nos. 20 of 1992 and 21 of 1992 decided that the water-body in question is a riverine beel and that no appeal was preferred from such decision by the appellant or any other party and hence such finding has attained finality. He denies the allegation that the learned First Court has decided the question of title to the property. 9. Besides the factual matrix, Mr. Datta submits that Section 6(1)(e) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and the explanation thereto describe “Tank Fishery” as a reservoir or place for storage of water from natural or artificial sources and is being used for pisciculture together with the sub-soil and the banks of such reservoir, except such portions of the banks as are included in a homestead or in a garden of orchard ad includes any right of pisciculture of or fishing in such reservoir or place. 10. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 centres his arguments on the fact that the writ petitioner was the highest bidder in the tender floated by the respondent no. 6 (BL & LRO, Rajarhat) on 29th February 2016 pursuant to which the writ petitioner deposited the money before the concerned authorities. The writ petition was filed as the State authorities failed to take any steps for finalizing the tender and handing over the tank fishery to the writ petitioner. Counsel submits that the water-body is vested property and the State should be directed to hand over possession of the same to the writ petitioner. He submits that the appellant/private respondent has illegally been in possession of the water-body. Counsel submits that the water-body is vested property and the State should be directed to hand over possession of the same to the writ petitioner. He submits that the appellant/private respondent has illegally been in possession of the water-body. It is further submitted that the lease deeds relied upon by the appellant were prepared on 25th April 1995 long after the proceeding of vesting was completed in favour of the State authorities. 11. He submits that the orders of this Court which have been relied on by the appellant do not establish the rights and interest of the appellant in the water-body and further, the deeds of conveyance executed by the erstwhile owner of the water-body on 16th May 2007 and 18th March 2008 are un-registered documents. He reiterates that the appellant is in possession of the water-body in an unauthorized and illegal manner and the order passed by the First Court should be sustained. 12. We have considered the submissions made by the appellant Madhumita Constructions (the private respondent in the writ petition), the State of West Bengal (the respondent no.1 in the writ petition) and the writ petitioner Cooperative society (the respondent no.1 before us). It should be reiterated at the very outset that the prayers made in the writ petition by the co-operative society was for a direction on the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) for issuing a possession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of “Choto-O-Baro-Paresh-Bheri” located at Mouza Dhapa Manpur, North 24 Parganas, and for police assistance for taking possession of the aforesaid water-body. Prayer (d) of the writ petition was for restraining the private respondent (the appellant) from carrying on pisciculture in the water-body. An interim order in relation to the last prayer was also sought for in the writ petition. The prayers sought for by the writ petitioner are important since the reliefs granted in the impugned judgment and order have to be seen in the context of the grievance of the parties urged before us. 13. An interim order in relation to the last prayer was also sought for in the writ petition. The prayers sought for by the writ petitioner are important since the reliefs granted in the impugned judgment and order have to be seen in the context of the grievance of the parties urged before us. 13. Upon considering the submissions made by counsel representing the parties before it, the learned First Court found that the only questions which were required to be gone into was whether the process followed for leasing out the water-body was in accordance with law; in particular the tender floated by the BL & LRO on 29th February, 2016 for the purpose of leasing out the water-body. In considering this issue, the learned First Court took into account relevant facts placed by the State that the issue of finalisation of the tender for leasing out the water-body had already been placed before a five member committee headed by the District Magistrate. The learned Judge further took into account the order passed on 11th July 2016 by this Court that the District Magistrate will decide the issue preferably within a period of four weeks. The submission made by counsel for the private respondent/appellant was also considered and the learned Judge found that the procedure adopted by the State for floating of tender in connection with the water-body had no rational nexus with the order passed by this Court in a previous writ petition being W.P. No. 30473 (W) of 2015. It should be reiterated that the private respondent/appellant had urged that the procedure adopted by the State for leasing out the water-body is without jurisdiction as the order dated 11th January 2016 had been subsequently recalled. This submission did not find favour with the learned Fast Court on the ground that the writ petitioner in W.P. No.17460 (W) of 2017 (in which the impugned judgment was passed) was not a party to the previous writ petition. It may also be reiterated that the primary grievance of the writ petitioner was that the State had not taken steps to finalise the tender process despite accepting the writ petitioner as the successful bidder in the tender floated by the BL & LRO on 29th January 2016 and that further the petitioner had deposited certain sums of money in relation to the tender. After considering the fact that the private respondent was in possession of the water-body and was using it as a Tank Fishery as on the date of the order, the learned Judge thought it fit to direct the BL & LRO to complete the finalisation of tender within a certain time frame and to take necessary action so that the petitioner can carry on fishing activity in the water-body subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down by the BL & LRO. 14. In coming to the point where the above direction was issued to the BL & LRO, the learned Judge considered and decided the issue of the rights of the private respondent/appellant to use the water-body for pisciculture. The case of the appellant has been set out earlier on in this order. To reiterate in brief, the appellant had claimed ownership and possession of the water-body in question on the basis of lease deeds executed in 1995 and later deeds of conveyance executed in its favour by the erstwhile owners on 16th May 2007 and 18th March 2008. The learned First Court was however of the view that the appellant has not acquired any interest in the water-body as in 2007-2008, when the deeds were executed since the transferors (the erstwhile owners of the water-body) had no transferable interest in the said water-body. He further held that since the record of rights in connection with the water-body was corrected by way of a composite order on 4th January 1993 vesting the water-body in the State, the erstwhile owners could have no right or interest in the said water-body on the date of execution of the lease deeds in 1995. The basis of such reasoning is three-fold. First, the orders relied upon by the appellant in earlier writ petitions passed in W.P. No.10299(w) of 2015 had granted police protection to the private respondent, but had not established the right and interest of the private respondent to the water-body. Second, the order passed on 4th January 1993 correcting the record of rights had not been set aside in any competent forum till date. Second, the order passed on 4th January 1993 correcting the record of rights had not been set aside in any competent forum till date. This order of 1993 was the reason for the learned Judge to hold that the erstwhile owners could not have transferred any right or title in the water-body in favour of the appellant since the three deeds of conveyance were executed subsequent to the revision of the Record of Rights in 1993. The reason why the findings of the learned First Court are being dwelt upon is because in an appeal from proceedings where a writ of mandamus has been prayed for, a Court would be reluctant re-appraise the findings where discretion has been exercised by the First Court unless the Court notices palpable infirmities in the exercise of such discretion. The infirmity could be a failure to consider material facts or conclusions drawn from such facts which would be impossible to sustain. The Court sitting in appeal could also find that conclusions have been drawn from wholly irrelevant factors unrelated to the issues urged, making the order vulnerable to challenge. It can also be that the learned First Court, despite the wide canvas for protecting the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, has lost sight of the relief prayed for by an aggrieved writ petitioner. 15. We find that the learned First Court has in fact rejected the prayer for a direction on the BL & LRO to issue possession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner for the water-body in question on the ground that no lease deed can be executed in favour of the writ petitioner since the tender process has not yet been finalised. 16. Since extended arguments have been made by Mr. Mitra on behalf of the appellant in respect of the long-standing possession and rights arising out of such, in favour of the appellant to the water-body in question, we have perused the orders relied upon by Mr. Mitra to establish the alleged rights of the appellant. A gist of what the orders reflect is required to be stated in brief. Mitra on behalf of the appellant in respect of the long-standing possession and rights arising out of such, in favour of the appellant to the water-body in question, we have perused the orders relied upon by Mr. Mitra to establish the alleged rights of the appellant. A gist of what the orders reflect is required to be stated in brief. By the order passed on 3rd August, 1973, this Court questioned the procedure for changing the classification of the particular Mouzas in Dhapa Manpur (pertaining to the present proceedings, according to the appellant); the order dated 29th June, 1981 records that the Court was unhappy with the inordinate delay on the part of the State in acquiring the land in question and the order dated 31st July, 1981 recorded the unwillingness of the State to acquire the land under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in pursuance of a letter issued by The Government of West Bengal on 29th July, 1981. It is not clear from the orders dated 29th November, 1999 and 17th April, 2007 passed by this Court as to how such orders can assist the case of the appellant in establishing its right in the water-body. From the order dated 29th September, 2011 (the complete order has not been annexed), the question before a Division Bench of this Court was whether the appellant could diversify its existing business on the land being the subject matter of the proceedings and whether the State should be restrained from interfering with such diversification. From the portion of the order which has been annexed to the paper book, it seems that the Division Bench primarily considered the issue whether the concerned authority was empowered to grant the required sanction and whether the proposed diversification was in keeping with the preservation of the local environment. From the aforesaid orders passed in different proceedings in this Court, it does not appear that there has been any admission on the part of the State that the possession in relation to the land had always been with the appellant and/or its predecessors-in-interest or that the appellant had any right therein. From the aforesaid orders passed in different proceedings in this Court, it does not appear that there has been any admission on the part of the State that the possession in relation to the land had always been with the appellant and/or its predecessors-in-interest or that the appellant had any right therein. While it may be correct that the appellant has been using the water-body as a Tank Fishery for a substantial period of time (as has also been recorded in the impugned judgment), the mere fact of possession will not preclude the State from correcting its records; reference (State of West Bengal and another Vs. Arun Kumar Basu and another, (1997) 5 SCC 317 ). It may also be pointed out that we have not been shown any order which would conclusively prove the right, title and interest of the appellant in Choto-O-BaroParesh-Bheri or any other document which would persuade us to disregard the submissions put forward by the State or the writ petitioner that a “Beel” cannot be private property. 17. We have also considered the order passed by the BL & LRO dated 4th January, 1993, which led to the modification of the Record of Rights by the State. The relevant portions of the order are required to be set out: “.........................On the date of enquiry it was found that along contral Lake canal there still flows a narrow stream. This stream clearly indicates the connection of the area with the River Vidyadhari. Though the land has since been converted into Various uses, local enquiry confirms that at the time of preparation of R.S.R.O.R., almost the entire area was connected with the River Vidyadhari. .........................It appears from R.S.R.O.R. that many of the plots involving the instant proceedings were originally recorded as “Beel”, but were changed erroneously to “Bheri Mach Chas” to evade ceiling area under the W.B.E.A. Act. For instance, I like to mention categorically R.S Khatian No. 118 wherein plots 932, 933,1180 were of “Beel” clarification but subsequently that clarification was changed into “Bheri Much Chas” without any field verification or otherwise. The interested parties and the authorized representatives of the interested parties do not do not examine either the R.O. or the T.A. ...................On the basis of the above discussion, weighing properly the study about the origin of the River Vidyadhari and its behaviours in conjunction with other connecting canals. The interested parties and the authorized representatives of the interested parties do not do not examine either the R.O. or the T.A. ...................On the basis of the above discussion, weighing properly the study about the origin of the River Vidyadhari and its behaviours in conjunction with other connecting canals. .....................It should be held that the land in the instant proceedings is the spill area of the River Vidyadhari i.e., connected with the perennial flow of the River Vidyadhari. And I do hold that. .....................Hence ordered that the land in the instant proceedings in considered as the land of the Government ab initio. The record of rights be corrected accordingly Modification of the record of rights in respect of the suit plots be started immediately u/s 47 of the W.B.E.A. Act, 1953.” 18. Even if we were to accept the contention of Mr. Mitra that the appellant’s predecessors in interest did not participate in the hearing before the authority in 1992/1993, it is indeed surprising as to why no challenge was made to an order passed in 1993 particularly since it persuaded the State to revise its records pertaining to the nature of the land in question. Second, if the deeds of conveyance relied upon by the appellant of 1995 and 2007-2008 are all subsequent to January 1993, that is, subsequent to the revision of the Record of Rights in favour of the State, we wonder what interest in the water-body could have been transferred by the Basus to the appellant? 19. Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the question of title has been decided in a writ proceedings, we find that the learned Judge has in fact given liberty to the appellant to challenge the order passed by the Special Revenue Officer under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act before an appropriate authority. The learned Judge further noted that the observations made in the impugned order with regard to vesting of the water-body in the State will not debar the appropriate authority to decide the issue in accordance with law. Therefore, the alleged interest of the appellant in the water-body has not been closed for all times to come nor has the writ petitioner’s right been adjudicated as having the sole right to use the water-body as a Tank Fishery. Therefore, the alleged interest of the appellant in the water-body has not been closed for all times to come nor has the writ petitioner’s right been adjudicated as having the sole right to use the water-body as a Tank Fishery. We find the stand taken by the First Court to be reasonable since the learned Judge refrained from deciding issues of title until finalisation of the tender process. It should also be mentioned that the revision of the Record of Rights made on 4th January 1993 based on certain geographical/topographical factors is something which the State is empowered to do; reference (State of West Bengal and others Vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy and Fisheries Private Limited and another, (1993) Supp4 SCC 674), provided that the water-body is indeed a “beel”. The decision of this Hon’ble Court in (Gopeswar Setiar Vs. Assistant Collector, Estates Acquisition, (1961) 66 Cal WN 511) would also be applicable in the facts of the case. We also find merit in the submission of the State that possession of property cannot affect vesting as decided in (State of West Bengal and another Vs. Arun Kumar Basu and another, (1997) 5 SCC 317 ). However, since we are aware of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1993) Supp 4 SCC 674, particularly paragraph 20 thereof, we are of the view that the appellant is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Special Revenue Officer under section 57A read with section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act before the appropriate authority in accordance with law, as rightly observed by the First Court. Since the stay of the impugned order has been continuing from 1st September, 2017 till date, the State respondents/BL & LRO is directed to complete the tender process within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 20. We have deliberately not gone into the question of who has the right to fishing activity in the water-body, since that would be beyond the scope of the writ proceedings and cannot in any event, be decided before the completion of the tender process. 21. The appeal and the connected applications are disposed of accordingly. Urgent photo state certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on a priority basis.