Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1393 (CAL)

Madan Mohan Hudati v. State of West Bengal`

2023-08-17

BIBEK CHAUDHURI

body2023
JUDGMENT : BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. 1. For the purpose of making provision for new freight terminal facilities for South Eastern Railways at Sankrail in the district of Howrah, land acquisition proceedings were initiated under LA case No. 4 (Act II) of 1980-81, 5 (Act II) of 1980-81, 9 (Act II) of 1980-81, 1(Act II) of 1985-86, 1 (Act II) of 1988-89, 3 (Act-II) of 1988-89, 4 (Act-II) of 1988-89 and 5 (Act II) of 1988-99 pursuant to the provision of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter described as the 1948 Act) for acquisition of several agricultural lands measuring about 212.3 acres in total, lying and situated at different dag numbers of Mouza-Chaturbhuj Kati, Mashila, Sankrail Jala and Kolora under police station Sankrail in the district of Howrah. Amongst the said lands, petitioners’ agricultural land were also proposed to be acquired. On initiation of acquisition proceedings, notices for requisition of the land of the petitioners’ were issued under the provision of Section 3(I) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 by the competent authority. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the said notices under the 1948 Act are issued by the respondent No. 2 during the period between 1986 and 1989. It is submitted by the petitioners that the 1948 Act was enacted purely as a temporary measure to provide for requisition and speedy acquisition of land for certain purposes which was originally indented to be in force till 31st day of March, 1951. However, the said period was extended from time to time and finally it was extended till 31st March, 1997 by the West Bengal Act 25 of 1996. Section 7 of the 1948 Act deals with the compensation payable in course of or in connection with the requisition and acquisition proceeding under the said Act. Section 7 of 1948 Act culls out the provisions and principles to be followed in determining compensation to the persons whose land is requisitioned for the purpose of acquisition. Section 7 of the 1948 Act deals with the compensation payable in course of or in connection with the requisition and acquisition proceeding under the said Act. Section 7 of 1948 Act culls out the provisions and principles to be followed in determining compensation to the persons whose land is requisitioned for the purpose of acquisition. The petitioners’ further state that the land which was intended to be requisitioned by the respondents were agricultural land being regularly cultivated by the petitioners’ from the time of their predecessors for earning their livelihood and with issuance of notice under Section 3(I)(A) of the said Act, the domain on control over the said land were taken over by the respondent, without acquiring any right, ownership or restraining the petitioners from using of the respective lands, pursuant to the provision of sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of the 1948 of Act. Some the petitioners received part compensation on adhoc basis under the provision of Section 8 (B) of the said Act. In respect of LA case No. 4 (Act II) of 1981, 5 (Act II) of 1988-89, 9 (Act II) of 1980-81, 1 (Act II) of 1988-89 and 1 (Act II) of 1988-89. Notices under Section 4 (1a) of the said Act was issued and published in Calcutta Gazette respectively of 12th February, 1991, 12th December, 1990, 20th April, 1992, 27th March, 1992, 21st December, 1990 and 18th December, 1989 respectively. No notice under Section 4(1a) of 1948 Act was however issued and\or published in respect of LA cases No. 3 (Act II) of 1988-89, 4 (Act II) of 1980-81 and 5 (Act II) of 1988-89 and the land requisitioned pursuant to the proceedings initiated in connection with the LA cases No. 3 and 4 were subsequently released from the said requisition pursuant to the provision of Section 6 of the 1948 Act. It is further stated by the petitioners that although it was mandatory and statutory duty of the respondents to serve notice upon the petitioners whose land were allegedly acquisitioned, but no such notice was served upon the petitioners. 3. It is further stated by the petitioners that although it was mandatory and statutory duty of the respondents to serve notice upon the petitioners whose land were allegedly acquisitioned, but no such notice was served upon the petitioners. 3. It is also submitted by the petitioners that although pursuant to the provision of Section 4 of Act 2 of 1948, it was mandatory for the respondents to serve notice upon the petitioners whose land were allegedly acquired, but no such notice was served upon the petitioners in respect of land acquisition case No. 4(Act II) of 1980-81, 5 (Act II) of 198081, 1 (Act II) of 1985-86 and 1 (Act II) of 1988-89 and the said notice were issued only in respect of LA Case No. 9 (Act II) of 1982-81. Although the above stated proceeding were initiated from time to time and notices were published under Section 4(1a) of Act 2 of 1948, but no award was made in respect of the lands so acquisitioned either within the period of 3 years from the publication of the relevant notice in the Official Gazette or within the period of one year from the date of commencement of West Bengal Land (Acquisition and Requisition) Amendment Act, 1994 which came into effect with effect from 1st April, 1994 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 7a and the said Act, the notices issued under Section 4(1a) of the said Act lapsed with minimum effect on expiry of the period as referred in the said Section 7a of the said Act. 4. It is further submitted by the petitioners the simultaneously with the lapse of the said notices, purported to have been issued under Section 4(1a) of the said Act, the element of permanency and finality involving transfer of title of the lands of acquisition by the State Government unto and in favour of the State which took place with issuance of publication of relevant Gazette Notifications pursuant to the provisions of Section 4(1a) of the said Act, became extinguished and non-est and title of the said lands reverted back to the petitioners, setting the clock back to the stage of the proceeding under Section 3 of the said Act of 1948 and only the domain or control over the said lands, purely in temporary duration remained with the respondent without however acquiring any right of ownership. Since Act 2 of 1948 being a temporary Act received its natural death by efflux of time without there having any provision with regard to continuance of the proceedings originally initiated during the subsistence of the said Act, the State respondent issued notice to the petitioners on 21st June, 2004 purported to be under Sub-Section (3B) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 in respect of the LA Case No. 4 of 1980-81, 5 of 1980-81, 9 of 1980-81, 1 of 1985-86 and 1 of 1988-89 intimating the petitioners that their respective lands were covered under the LA Case and they were finally to be taken by the government for the purpose of New Freight Terminal Facilities at Sankrail under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 and requiring petitioners to appear before the respondent No. 2 on 23rd July, 2004. It is stated by the petitioners that sub-Section 3B was made applicable in cases were two conditions being (a) possession of the concerned land has been taken on requisition under Section 3 and (b) notice of acquisition of such land has also been published under sub-Section 1(a) of Section 4 of the Act 2 of 1948 and fulfilled. But in case of the above-mentioned Land Acquisition Act in respect of non-fulfillment of one of the aforesaid pre conditions, notices under Section 9 (3b) were issued. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that when the respondent failed to make award or pay compensation within statutory period of time as envisaged in Act 2 of 1948 within the extended period of time as mentioned in Section 7A of the Act 2 of 1948, the notices under Section 4(1a) were lapsed and this cannot be revived by subsequent notice under Section 9(3a) or 3B of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment Act). 6. With the above pleading the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to forebear from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned notices purported to have been issued under Section 7, 9(3)B of the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act) 1997 in connection with LA case No. 4 of 1980-81, 5 of 1980-81, 9 of 1980-81, 1 of 1985-86 and 1 of 1988-89. The petitioners’ have also prayed for a declaration with the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition), Act 1948 having expired with effect from 1st April, 1997 by an efflux of time without their having any special provision for continuation of proceedings initiated under the said Act. The abovementioned proceedings have lapsed ipso facto and the respondents are liable to restore the possession of the land of the petitioners’ under the said land acquisition proceedings. 7. The respondents No. 1-4 have filed an affidavit in opposition denying the material allegation made out by the petitioner. The specific case of the state respondent is stated in the filing a chart: REPORT REGARDING THE L.A CASES, INVOLVED THIS WRIT PETITION S. No. L.A. Cases Mouza with Area Date of R.O. Date of possession taking over making over Date of Gazette Publication Whether 80% Ad. Hoc payment was ready Date of switching over u/s 9(3B) of Act Remarks 1. 4 (Act-II) of 80-81 Chaturbhunj Kati Area 26.87 acres 10.11.1987 20.11.1987 12.02.1991 Yes 17.06.2004 Notice u/s 9(3B) have been served Estimate is sanctioned by Govt. 2. 5 (Act-II) of 80-81 Mashila Area 64-97 acres 05.04.1988 18.04.1988 21.12.1990 Yes 15.09.2004 Do 3. 9 (Act-II) of 80-81 Sankrail Jala Area 111.47 acrea 07.10.1987 19.04.1987 27.03.1992 Yes 20.07.2004 Estimate approved by the Govt. Award has already been declared and filed on 26.03.2005. Most of the notices for payment of award are served. Due to stay order of the Hon’ble High Court, Cal. The proceedings are stopped causing suffering to the awardees who received the notices and willing to receive the awarded money. 4. 1 (Act-II) of 85-86 Sankrail Jala Area 56.925 20.01.1986 11.08.1987 21.12.1990 Yes 21.06.2004 Award declared and filed payment is made. 5. 1 (Act-II) of 88-89 Mashila Area 1155 Acres 03.05.1989 12.05.1989 18.09.1989 Yes 12.07.2004 Notices u/s 9(3B) have been served. Estimate to be sanctioned by the Govt. 6. 3 (Act-II) of 88-89 Kolora 20.04.1989 R.G was issued but question of acquisition does not arise as act is repealed and R.B is not willing to acquire so allegation denied. 7. 4 (Act-II) of 88-89 Chaturkhujkati 26.11.1989 R.O. issued and cancelled question of Acquisition does not arise so allegation denied. 8. 5 (Act-II) of 88-89 Mashila Area 12.435 acres 09.08.1989 18.08.1989 Under the proposal of requiring body releasing from Acquisition is under process. 8. 7. 4 (Act-II) of 88-89 Chaturkhujkati 26.11.1989 R.O. issued and cancelled question of Acquisition does not arise so allegation denied. 8. 5 (Act-II) of 88-89 Mashila Area 12.435 acres 09.08.1989 18.08.1989 Under the proposal of requiring body releasing from Acquisition is under process. 8. The petitioners’ have filed an affidavit in reply reiterating their stands made out in the instant writ petition. 9. Mr. Mahato, learned Advocate for the petitioners’ submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered and conclusively decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Sabita Mondal, (2011) 3 CHN 555 (FB). 10. Like Sabita Mondal (supra) in the instant writ petition also, the question that arises for adjudication is that if no award was passed under Section 7(a) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 as amended by the West Bengal Act XXV of 1996 within the period of two years before the commencement of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act 1994, by issuing the notice under Section (3B) of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition, (West Bengal) (Amendment) Act 1997, the lapsed notice earlier issued under Section 4(Ia) of the Act 2 of 1948 is revived. It is submitted by Mr. Mahata that in LA case No. 4 (Act 2) of 1980-81 date of publication of notice under Section 4(Ia) in the official gazette was on 12th February, 1991. In LA case No. 5 (Act 2) of 1980-81 date of publication of notice is on 21st December, 1990. Similarly in case 9 of 1980-81 notice was published on 27th March, 1992, Thus in the of above three cases notice under Section 4(I)(a) was published prior to 31st March, 1992. In LA case No. 1 of 1980-81 date of publication of notice was 18th December, 1989. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahata, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner does not pray for remaining other cases. It is submitted by Mr. Mahato that Section 7 of 1948 Act deals with the compensation of acquisition of land. The 1948 Act was amended in the year 1996 inserting Section 7A in the said Act. Section 7A in the said Act runs thus: “7A. It is submitted by Mr. Mahato that Section 7 of 1948 Act deals with the compensation of acquisition of land. The 1948 Act was amended in the year 1996 inserting Section 7A in the said Act. Section 7A in the said Act runs thus: “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 (herein after referred as the said notice), and if such award in 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, the award shall be made within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act (31.3.94) Explanation: In computing the period of three years or one year, as the case may be, under this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said notice is stayed by an order of a Court having jurisdiction shall be excluded.” 11. Thus it is submitted by Mr. Mahata that in respect of LA cases No. 4 of 1980-81, 5 of 1980-81 and 9 of 1980-81, the state respondents were under obligation to make award under sub-section (2) of Section 7 within 3 years from the date of notification, publication of notice failing which, the said notice had lapsed. Accordingly, notices under Section 4(I)(a) dated 12th February, 1991 under 1948 Act in LA case No. 4 of 1980-81 was lapsed as the Collector failed to make award within 3 years from publication of the notices on similar ground. Notices dated 21st December, 1990 and 27th March, 1992 published in LS cases No. 5 of 1980-81 and 9 of 1980-81 were also lapsed in view of the provision contained in Section 7A of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1996. Finally, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the said proceedings cannot be revived by issuing a notice under Section 3(b) of the said Amendment Act 7 of 1997 in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. Mr. Finally, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the said proceedings cannot be revived by issuing a notice under Section 3(b) of the said Amendment Act 7 of 1997 in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned Advocate for the State respondents has submitted a written notes of argument stating the historical background of the chain of event involved in the instant case. It is submitted by him that the land of the petitioners’ along with other lands under Mouza - Chaturbhuj Kati, Mashila, Sankrail Jala was sought to be acquired by Ministry of Railways, Government of India from time to time by floating proposal for the public purpose of construction of a new freight terminal at Sankrail under the 1948 Act. 13. As a result, the abovementioned LA case were instituted upon service of notice under Section 3 for requisition of the land and publication of notices under Section 4(I)(a) for acquisition of the said lands in accordance with the provisions of the 1948 Act. In LA case No. 4 of 1980-81 notice under Section 3 was issued and total area of 20.21 acres of land was requisitioned by the order of the ld. Additional District Magistrate on 9th November, 1987. Subsequently, additional 26.87 acres of land was requisitioned by another notice dated 20th November, 1987. Similarly, in LA case No. 5 of 1980-81, 64.97 acres of land of Mouza-Mashila was requisitioned on 18th April, 1988 by issuing a notice under Section 3(I)(a) of Act 2 of 1948 on 5th April, 1988. In LA case No. 9 of 1980-81, 120.50 acres of land of Mouza-Sankrail Jala was requisitioned serving notice to the land owner under Section 3(I)(a) of the 1948 Act on 23rd December, 1987. Similarly in LA case No. 1 of 1988-89, 11.55 acres of land of Mouza-Mashila was requisitioned by a notice under Section 3(I)(a) of 1948 Act on 3rd May, 1989. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Dey that in connection with LA case No. 4 of 1980-81, notification under Section 4(I)(a) of the 1948 Act was published on 1st February, 1991 and 30th February, 1991 under the provision of Section 4(I)(a) of the 1948 Act. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Dey that in connection with LA case No. 4 of 1980-81, notification under Section 4(I)(a) of the 1948 Act was published on 1st February, 1991 and 30th February, 1991 under the provision of Section 4(I)(a) of the 1948 Act. On publication of notice under Section 4(Ia) of the Act land of Chaturbhuj Kati Mouza was automatically vested with the state free from all encumbrances following the provision of Section 4(2) of the Act. After taking over the possession, the Collector has also handed over the possession of the said land to the South Eastern Railways. Similarly in acquisition of land in Sankrail Jala. Section 4(1)(A) notice was published on 27th March, 1992 and on publication of such notice the land in the said Mouza was automatically vested with the state free from all encumbrances. In respect of other 2 cases, notice under Section 4(1)(a) was published in the official gazette on 12th December, 1990 and 15th September, 1989 respectively and with the publication of such notice process of vesting is completed. 15. It is however admitted by the learned Senior Government Counsel that Act II of 1948 was repealed on 31st March, 1997 and award could not be made in favour of the land losers within the life time of the extant Act. Since the LA proceeding were pending for non-determination of the award by the appropriate authority the State respondents invoked Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 and due notice was issued to the persons to confirm their respective right and claim with regard to the land affected by notice issued under Section 4(I)(a) of the Act. The notice under Section 9(3B) of the Act 1 of 1894 was issued on 20th June, 2004. The Collector, Howrah has already declared award under the relevant provisions of the LA Act on 31st March, 2006. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings reached its culmination. At this stage the petitioners’ are not entitled to claim that the LA proceedings were lapsed following the declaration of the award. Notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act were issued to the awardees and some of the awardees/petitioners’ also received compensation for the portion of the land held by them. 16. It is further submitted by Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader that the Act II of 1948 was repealed on 31st March, 1997. Notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act were issued to the awardees and some of the awardees/petitioners’ also received compensation for the portion of the land held by them. 16. It is further submitted by Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader that the Act II of 1948 was repealed on 31st March, 1997. But award could not be made within the life time of the extant Act, on account of acquisition of land of Mouza-Mashila through the notification published under Section 4(1a) of the Act. The LA proceedings, though was initiated under the Act 1948 and since it remained incomplete for non-determination of award by appropriate authority, the said allegation process would require completion by invoking Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997, for which notices were issued to the persons to confirm their respective rights and claim with regard to the land affected by notice under Section 4(1a) of the Act. The petitioners to the writ were issued notices under Section 9(3B) of the Act I on 25th July, 2004 informing them to remain present to establish their interest over the portion of the land acquired in such process. The Collector, Howrah declared award on 13th July, 2006. The award passed by LA Collector, Howrah cannot be said to be bad in law claiming lapse of acquisition proceeding. 17. It is also contended by Mr. De that the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sabita Mondal (supra) is not applicable in the instant case on the ground that in paragraph 20 of the said decision, it is specifically observed that by the Amendment Act, 1997 only those notices under sub Section (Ia) of Section 4 which would have lapsed on the mid night of March, 31st, 1997 or on subsequent dates would have been saved. The facts of that said case are completely different from this case. In the present case, award has been declared and notices under Section 12(2) of the Act 1894 was issued to the awardees. Some of the awardees of the writ petition received award money in respect of the portion of the land which has been acquired. Sub Sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 9 was incorporated by the said Amendment of 1997. Some of the awardees of the writ petition received award money in respect of the portion of the land which has been acquired. Sub Sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 9 was incorporated by the said Amendment of 1997. Only for the purpose of continuation of the proceeding under 1948 Act, till the completion of the proceeding, for the reason that the proceeding under the 1948 Act cannot run for unlimited period of time, the legislature amended Section 9 of Act I of 1894 by inserting sub-Section (3A) and (3B) stating, inter-alia, that award shall be made within a period of 2 years from the date of issue of public notice for acquisition of the Act. 18. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and on due consideration of factual circumstances involved in the instant writ petition, it clear that though the LA proceedings in respect of subject land was initiated during the period from 1980-81 to 1988-89 and notices under Section 4(1a) were published but award has not been declared and paid as of yet. After a lapse of 3 years for the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1a) of Act 2 of 1948, the said notice automatically lapsed. 19. Section 7 of Act 2 of 1948 deals with the provisions of compensation and says that it shall be determined by the Collector in the manner and in accordance with the principles stated in sub-Section 1 of Section 23 and the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The provision of Section 7 of Act 2 of 1948 is reproduced below: “7. Compensation: (1) Whenever any land is acquired under section 4 there shall be paid (to every person interested) compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Collector in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (so far as they may be applicable): Provided that the market value referred to in clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23 of said Act shall, in respect of any land acquired under this Act, be deemed to be the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice referred to in (sub-section (1a) of section 4). Provided further that in respect of any land in Calcutta which, immediately before the 1st day of January, 1964, constituted a busted as defined in clause (10) of section 5 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the amount of compensation to be paid on account of acquisition to the persons interested shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Calcutta Slum Clearance and Rehabilitation of Slum-dwellers Act, 1958, so far as they may be applicable. (2)(a) When the compensation has been determined under section (1) the Collector shall make an award in accordance with the principles set out in section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (and the amount referred to in sub-section (2) and section 23 of that Act, shall also be included in the award): Provided that interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on the amount of compensation under the award from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1a) of section 4 until payment shall be included in the amount payable under the award. (aa)(i) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's Office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested in the land, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (ii) the Collector shall give in the prescribed manner immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested in the land as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. (b) Upon an award being made under clause (a), the Collector shall proceed to make payment in accordance with the provisions of sections 31 to 33 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as they may be applicable. (3) Where any land is requisitioned under section 3, there shall be paid to every person interested (compensation), in respect of: (a) the requisition of such land. (b) any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other than what may have been sustained by natural causes. (3) Where any land is requisitioned under section 3, there shall be paid to every person interested (compensation), in respect of: (a) the requisition of such land. (b) any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other than what may have been sustained by natural causes. (4) The principle to be followed in determining compensation under sub-section (3) shall be as follows, namely: (i) where the Collector and the person interested agree as to the compensation, the Collector shall make an award ordering payment of the agreed compensation. (ii) where the person interested cannot be traced or does not appear before the Collector when called upon to be present for the purpose of the determination of the compensation, such amount shall be determined as compensation as appears reasonable to the Collector having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Collector shall make an award ordering payment of the compensation so determined. (iii) where there is any disagreement between the Collector and the person interested, the compensation payable shall be the amount determined by the Court on reference made by the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8.” 20. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that thus compensation was not paid within due time by the Collector and the property remained under the control of the respondent on the basis of the requisition under Section 3 of the 1948. However, it is needless to say that Section 3 of the Principal Act was omitted from 1948 Act with effect from 1st April, 1994, though such omission had no affect the previous operation of the said Section so omitted and or anything duly done or suffered thereunder of affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said Section so omitted or affect any inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or remedy, in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation or liability, in any such inquiry, investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the said Section so omitted. Thus it is clear that the effect of omission of Section 3 of Act of 1948 was prospective and it was omitted with effect from 1st April, 1994. Thus it is clear that the effect of omission of Section 3 of Act of 1948 was prospective and it was omitted with effect from 1st April, 1994. However in respect of pending proceedings, where requisitioned notice was issued under Section 3 Act 2 of 1948 and subsequently land was acquired by Gazette Notification under Section 4(1a), it was incumbent duty of the respondent to pass award within three years from the date of issuance of notice under Section 4(1a) under the provision of Section 7Aof the said Act. 21. The affect of Land Acquisition (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1997 is succinctly laid down in the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sabita Mondal (supra) paragraph 19 and 20 of the said judgment is profitably quoted below: “19. 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 sub-section (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. 20. 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.” 22. 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.” 22. Plain reading of the above decision clearly shows that the notice under sub-Section (1a) of Section 4 issued after April 1, 1994 were protected or being lapsed by giving scope of revival by way of notice under Section (3b) of Section 9 of the said Act. However in respect of notice 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 within 3 years, the notice had already lapsed by the Amendment Act, 1997 of the Land Acquisition Act by the West Bengal Legislature and no provision has been made for the renewal of the lapsed notice which stood lapsed already on 31 March, 1997 for non-payment of award/compensation. 23. In view of such circumstance, I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant writ petition, notice under Section 4(1a) of Act 2 of 1948 were lapsed by efflux of time and the properties requisitioned by the LA Collector are directed to be de-requisitioned. 24. If the subject property involved in the instant writ petition cannot be de-requisitioned due to subsequent change of character of land, the state government shall pay compensation/award under the provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 25. The LA Collector is directed to initiate the proceeding under 2013 Act in respect of the subject land and fix the award after giving opportunity to the petitioners of hearing and dispose the same to the petitioner within 6 months from the date of communication of this order.