Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the State of West Bengal and its authorities assailing the judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and where under the said learned Judge allowed the writ petition on merits. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge of this Court declared that the entire acquisition proceedings relating to the property in question stood lapsed on account of publication of the award after the expiry of the prescribed period as provided in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the award, having been made in a lapsed proceeding, is a nullity and accordingly, quashed the same.
2. The facts relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property in question are briefly narrated hereinafter:
On 16th June, 1998, a notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the third floor of Premises No. 1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata - 20 for the purpose of providing barrack accommodation to Calcutta Police personnel. On behalf of the writ petitioners, objection was filed under Section 5A of the said Act on 24th September, 1998. The declaration under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th January, 1999. The copy of the aforesaid declaration was also published in the newspaper 'Ganasakti' on 20th January, 1999.
3. The writ petition wherefrom the present appeal arises was filed on 25th January, 1999 wherein an interim order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
Let this matter appear as a contested application before the appropriate Bench eight weeks hence.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date and reply, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.
There will be a stay of operation and further operation of the impugned notice being annexure 'G' to the writ application for a period of twelve weeks from date or until further orders of this Court whichever is earlier.
The reasons for passing the interim order is as follows:
***
***
Considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience I am of the view that stay should be granted as prayed for.
4. It has, however, been submitted on behalf of the appellants that on 23rd February, 1999 declaration was published in the locality. On 17th May, 1999 another learned Judge of this Court considering the prayer of the learned Counsel of the appellants herein extended the time to file affidavit-in opposition and also granted leave to proceed with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the following effect:
Leave is granted to proceed with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which shall abide by the result of the writ petition.
5. Undisputedly, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th January, 1999 and a copy of the said declaration was also published in the newspaper 'Ganasakti' on 20th January, 1999. Even if the later date i.e. 20th January, 1999 is considered to be the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act then the outer limit of two years under Section 11A of the said Land Acquisition Act expired on 19th January, 2001. Section 11A provides:
11-A. Period within which an award shall be made.-The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and info award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.Explanation.- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.
6. In the present case, learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 25th January, 1999 which remained operative for a period of 12 weeks i.e. for 84 days during which the appellants herein could not take any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the Collector concerned, in the present case, actually got total period of 2 years and further 12 weeks during which the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge remained operative for the purpose of making the award. The aforesaid period of 2 years and 12 weeks expired on 13th April, 2001 in view of the following calculations:
20th January, 1999 - Declaration waspublished in thenewspaper 'Ganasakti'.Statutory period of two years expired on 19th January, 2001.
Thereafter, further period of 12 weeks i.e. 84 days during which the interim order of stay passed by the learned Single Judge remained operative TO BE ADDED in the following manner:Month of January, 2001 - 12 daysMonth of Febraury, 2001 - 28 daysMonth of March, 2001 - 31 daysMonth of April, 2001 - 13 daysTotal 84 days
7. The appellants-State, however, cannot claim the benefit of the alleged publication in the locality on 23rd February, 1999 in view of the interim order of stay passed earlier by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 25th January, 1999 for a period of 12 weeks and the benefit of exclusion of the aforesaid period of 12 weeks had been allowed while computing the period within which award was required to be passed. According to the appellants, Collector made the award on 16th May, 2001 and the same was within the prescribed period provided under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
8. The learned Advocate of the appellants representing the State of West Bengal and its authorities produced a file containing the relevant records relating to the acquisition proceedings. From the said records we find that the Collector concerned signed the award on 16th May, 2001.
9. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents/writ petitioners strongly urged before this Court that the Collector did not pass any award on 16th May, 2001 and the contention of the appellants in this regard, according to Mr. Mukherjee, is patently incorrect. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to and relied on the statutory notice issued by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta on 26th December, 2001 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Form No. 15 whereby the writ petitioners were specifically informed that the award was made on 26th May, 2001 and it was also mentioned in the said notice that a sum of Rs. 44,39,574/- had been determined to be total amount due and payable to the land owners namely, the writ petitioners.
10. The office copy of the said notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Form No. 15 has been kept in the office file. Scrutinising the said office copy we find that the original date of the award was mentioned as 16th May, 2001 although the same was thereafter struck out and 26th May, 2001 was substituted in place thereof. Similarly the amount of the award as originally mentioned on 16th May, 2001 by the concerned Collector was subsequently altered in the statutory notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
11. The amount of Rs. 46,53,814/- was originally mentioned by the Collector concerned in the purported award allegedly signed on 16th May, 2001 which was altered to Rs. 44,39,574/- in the subsequent notice issued to the land owners namely, the writ petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in Form No. 15.
12. Notice under Section 12(2) issued to the writ petitioners and copy whereof appears at Page 163 of the Paper Book is the corrected copy of the draft notice kept in the office file.
13. From the records, however, we do not find any copy of the award signed by the Collector concerned on 26th May, 2001.
14. Mr. Aloke Biswas, learned Counsel representing the appellants submitted at the time of hearing that there could be some mistake with regard to the mentioning of the date of the award which we are not prepared to accept as from the office copy of the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and kept in the office file we find that the date of the award was initially mentioned as 16th May, 2001 which was struck out thereafter and substituted by 26th May, 2001.
15. In any event, there can be no doubt that on 26th May, 2001, no award as alleged could be made as the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed on 13th April, 2001 as mentioned hereinbefore. Furthermore, concerned Land Acquisition Collector in the present case did not make any award on 26th May, 2001 under his signature. Therefore, there is no existence of the alleged award dated 26th May, 2001 in the instant case.
16. Let us now examine whether any award was at all passed on 16th May, 2001.
17. Making of the award will be complete only after apportionment of the compensation among the different claimants.
18. The Collector's copy of the proceedings under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in Form No. 13 has been kept in the office file produced before this Court. On examination of the aforesaid Collector's copy we find that the space reserved for mentioning the names and addresses of persons interested and the nature of their respective interests have been kept blank.
19. In view of Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Collector shall make an award after making enquiry into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and also apportion the compensation money among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land/property sought to be acquisitioned. Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs as follows:
11. Inquiry and award by Collector.- [1] On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to inquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1)], and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:....
20. It is the consistent view of this Court that making of the award without apportionment is invalid. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Basu v. S. K. Banerjee and Ors. reported in 63 CWN 851, this Court observed at Page 854 as under:.The Scheme of the Act, therefore, is as follows: After hearing the respective claims of the persons interested in the compensation money, the Land Acquisition Collector must make an award under Section 11. In that award he must do all the things that are mentioned in Section 11, which has been quoted above. Amongst other things, he is bound to apportion the compensation money among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom or whose claims he has information, whether or not they have appeared before him....
21. Following the aforesaid decision this Court again specifically held in the case of Biswamitra Shukla and Ors. v. L.A. Collector, Burdwan and Ors. reported in 74 CWN 349 that an award without apportionment is invalid.
22. In the present case, even if the claim of the appellants regarding making of the award on 16th May, 2001 is accepted, then also the same cannot be treated as valid award since making of an award without apportionment is invalid.
23. Scrutinising the office file we find that the Collector concerned could not ascertain the actual claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in respect of the property in question owned by the writ petitioners. It appears from the records that on and from 13th July, 2001, several notes have been made for the purpose of ascertaining the actual claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities in the property in question and apportioning the compensation money for the purpose of making payment to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation towards its dues on account of arrears of property tax.
24. In the office note dated 13th July, 2001 it has been recorded:
(A) A draft is put up for favour of approval pl.
(B) Memo No. Ch. V/S-61 dt. 16.5.2001 of D.M.C. (E.M.), C.M.C. is placed below which may kindly be seen.
It appears from the above P.U.D. that C.M.C. has claimed as arrear dues for Rs. 48,27,683.60 on account of subject premises.
In this connection, it may be pointed out that Award was declared on 16.05.2001 without deducting the C.M.C. Taxes due to non-receipt of demand notice from the C.M.C. Moreover no payment made to the awardee, as the possession was not taken without the leave of the court.
Now a sum of Rs. 48,27,683.60 be deducted from the award as claimed by the C.M.C.
Submitted for order.
Later:
It is confusing from me how many amount is to be deducted from the owner of the subject premises.
E.O., B. Seth may be requested to contact thereat. (C.M.C.) and report early.
Sd/-
Illegible
13.07.2001.
25. Thereafter, in the subsequent several office notes dated 19th July, 2001, 23rd July, 2001, 24th July, 2001 and 26th July, 2001, steps were taken to ascertain the actual arrear dues of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities in relation to the property in question.
26. The office note dated 26th July, 2001 is very much interesting wherein the concerned Collector specifically observed as hereunder:
C.M.C. has not assessed the interest. However, as per calculation of interest by Sri N. M. Mitra, S.O. the amount appears to be Rs. 43,89,641-00 and the total amount of C.M.C. tax + interest payable on the date of possession is Rs. 56,51,032-00 when the total award amount is Rs. 46,53,814-00.
C.M.C. has delayed to submit their claim.
Under the circumstances, if the principal amount of C.M.C. tax + interest is paid, the owner of the land will not get any award amount. We may refer the matter to the Govt.
Sd/-
Illegible
26.07.2001.
27. The aforesaid observation of the Collector concerned was recorded on 26th July, 2001 i.e. long after 16th May, 2001 when according to the appellants, award was made.
28. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the Collector in his desperate attempt sought to make an award without ascertaining the actual claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities towards the outstanding dues in respect of the property in question. At least on 26th July, 2001 it was not known to the Collector how much amount is to be deducted from the awarded amount for the purpose of making payment to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities towards its liabilities in relation to the outstanding property tax.
29. On 2nd August, 2001 in another office note recorded at Page 37 of the note sheet it has been specifically recorded that the award was declared before ascertaining the claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities. The relevant office note dated 2nd August, 2001 is quoted hereunder:
In this case C.M.C. has claimed taxes of Rs. 12,61,391/- along with 12% interest.
As the Award was declared on 16.5.2001 in favour of the owner, and claim of C.M.C. was received after the award had been approved by helot.
So the matter may be referred to the Govt. for taking instruction in this matter. In the meantime possession of the subject premises may be stayed till Govt. instruction is received.
Submitted through L.S.
Yes, we may refer the matter to the Govt. immediately seeking instruction of the Govt. about cause of action to be taken and for which a draft & draft notice has been prepared. 1st LAC may kindly see for addition/alteration of the draft & rules.
Sd/-
Illegible
2.08.2001.
30. Several other relevant office notes dated 17th August, 2001, 24th August, 2001, 29th August, 2001, 3rd September, 2001, 1st October, 2001, 10th October, 2001, 12th October, 2001, 16th November, 2001, 28th November, 2001, 20th December, 2001 and 24th December, 2001 in this regard have been recorded in the subsequent pages of the note-sheets.
31. From the office note recorded on 24th December, 2001, we find that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities ultimately agreed to reduce its claim considerably. The total claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities towards the arrear dues in respect of the property in question was initially assessed at Rs. 56,51,032/- and the same was specifically mentioned in the office note dated 24th July, 2001. However, on 24th December, 2001 the said claim was considerably reduced to only Rs. 2,14,240/-. The relevant portion from the said office note dated 24th December, 2001 recorded at Page 45 of the note sheet is quoted hereunder:.The D.M.C. in his letter under reference has not claimed any interest. Therefore the said amount i.e. Rs. 2,14,240.00 (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand two hundred forty only) may be deducted from the award...
Sd/-
Illegible
24.12.2001.
32. So, from the aforesaid office note it is clear that till 24th December, 2001 the claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities towards the outstanding property tax dues was not finalised although according to the appellants, award was declared on 16th May, 2001. The Land Acquisition Collector and the other superior authorities of the land acquisition department sometimes acted in jet speed for the purpose of making the award within prescribed time limit and for this purpose even manipulated and/or fabricated the office records on several occasions.
33. The note recorded on 16th May, 2001 is very much relevant in this regard. The First Land Acquisition Collector on 16th May, 2001 recorded a note in the note sheet at Page 27 as hereunder:
From the telephonic discussion held today at 430 P.M. with Shri P.K. Sengupta, O.S.D. Home (Police) Deptt., it has been ascertained that Home(Police) Deptt. has allotted fund under their Memo No. 2366-PL dt. 16.5.2001.
Draft award has been prepared which may be sent to the L.R.C. along with copes of notification Under Section 4, declaration Under Section 6, estimate and award note, index card, G.O. No. 1232-LA dt. 26-4-2001 for approval.
Later, G.O. No. 2366-PL dt. 16.5.2001 of the Home (Police) Deptt. has been received and is placed below.
A draft is placed below.
Sd/-
Illegible
16.05.2001.
34. Thereafter, the said Collector recorded another note at Page 28 of the note sheet on the self-same date i.e. on 16th May, 2001 declaring the award. The aforesaid office note is also quoted hereunder:
No. 1348-LA/3P-13/97 dt. 16.5.2001.L.&L.R.; Deptt. has approved the draft award amounting to Rs. 46,53,814-00 (Rupees forty six lacs fifty three thousand eight hundred and fourteen) only.
The award may be declared.
V.O.S.
Sd/-
Illegible
16.05.2001.
35. If we scrutinise both the aforesaid office notes then it will be clear that the Collector concerned had the telephonic discussions with Sri P. K. Sengupta, O.S.D., Home (Police) Department at 4:30 P.M. when it was ascertained that Home (Police) Department had allotted fund under their Memo No. 2366-PL dated 16th May, 2001. Thereafter, the said Collector sent the draft award which was already prepared along with the copies of the notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, estimate and award note, index card etc. to the superior authority namely, L.R.C. for obtaining approval. From the office of the said Land Acquisition Collector relevant papers together with draft award were sent to the Writers' Buildings for the purpose of obtaining approval of the superior officer of the L&L.R.; Department. The office of the L&L.R.; department after receiving the aforesaid papers from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector approved the draft award and thereafter again forwarded the same to the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter passed the final award.
360 So, the entire exercise starting from the placement of the original office records by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector to the superior officer of the Land & Land Reforms Department from one office building to another office building for obtaining approval of the draft award by the superior authority upon proper application of mind as well as the publication of the final award thereafter by the said Collector concerned was completed unusually within a very short span of less than 30 minutes as the usual office hours on any working day in the office cannot be extended beyond 5:00 P.M. and from the aforesaid office notes dated 16th May, 2001 we find that the Land Acquisition Collector concerned initiated the steps for obtaining approval of the draft award from the superior authorities after holding a telephonic discussion at 4:30 P.M. on 16th May, 2001. Since the award was finally declared on the same day i.e. on 16th May, 2001 we will have to presume that the said award must have been declared by 5:00 P.M. which was practically impossible and therefore, we are unable to hold that the Collector concerned and his superior authority in the L&L.R.; Department acted in a bona fide manner in this regard.
37. For the aforementioned reasons, we have serious reservations in accepting the conduct of the officers involved in the acquisition proceedings as bona fide and proper. Several notes in the said office file appear to be manipulated and the possibility of recording backdated entries cannot be ruled out. The manner in which the office note dated 16th May, 2001 was recorded by the concerned officer along with various interpolations and overwritings specially in the Collector's copy of the proceedings under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in Form No. 13 kept in the office file as well as the office copy of the notice prepared under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Form No. 15 and kept also in the said office file raises serious doubts in our mind about the bona fide conduct of the concerned officers. The aforesaid interpolations, overwritings and the manner of recording the notes in the office file also compel us to believe that desperate attempts were made by the concerned officers including the Land Acquisition Collector in order to pass an award in a lapsed acquisition proceeding.
38. The prescribed statutory period of 2 years together with additional period of 12 weeks during which the interim order of stay passed by the learned Single Judge remained operative actually expired on 13th April, 2001 i.e. long before 16th May, 2001. Thus, the period within which the award was required to be made in terms of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had expired in the present case before 16th May, 2001.
39. There is no doubt that on failure to make an award within the time limit specified under Section 11A of Act I of 1894, the entire proceedings for the acquisition shall lapse. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents/writ petitioners referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court which are very much relevant in the facts of the present case:
1) : (1996) 1 SCC 434 [Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.]
2) AIR 1997 SC 2130 [Abdul Majeed Sahib and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.]
3) : (2007) 5 SCC 85 [Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
4) : (2002) 1 SCC 689 [Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.]
40. Making of the award without apportionment is also invalid. In the present case, even on 16th May, 2001, Collector did not apportion the compensation money among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land and as a matter of fact, the space reserved for mentioning the names and addresses of the persons interested was kept blank by the Collector concerned while signing Form No. 13 in relation to Land Acquisition proceedings under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in respect of the premises in question on 16th May, 2001.
41. The claims of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities towards the arrear outstanding dues in relation to the property tax in respect of the premises in question was finalised only on 24th December, 2001 and thereafter, steps were taken for payment of the same as would appear from the note-sheet dated 24th December, 2001. Therefore, on 16th May, 2001, claim of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities was admittedly, not finalised.
42. It may not be out of place to mention that under Section 221A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the Corporation is entitled to attach and sell the immovable property in the event of its failure to recover its dues.
43. Mr. Mukherjee referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Trigon Investment and Trading Private Limited and Anr. reported in : AIR 1996 SC 1579 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
15. ...Since the property tax constitutes first charge upon the land/building and because the land/building is fastened with this liability, the liability travels with the land/building. The transferee is liable to pay the property taxes duet hereon not only for the period subsequent to transfer in his favour but even for the period anterior to the transfer....
44. To ensure such absolute vesting free from all encumbrances, it is necessary to remove the charge under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 otherwise there will be no absolute vesting free from all encumbrances.
45. For the aforementioned reasons, in the instant case, no valid award could be passed on 16th May, 2001 as wrongfully claimed on behalf of the appellants and also recorded in the office file produced before this Court. Furthermore, no award also could be passed on 26th May, 2001 for the identical reasons mentioned hereinabove apart from the facts that from the office file also we do not find any copy of the award signed on 26th May, 2001.
46. The learned Counsel of the appellants at the time of hearing of this appeal did not claim that any such award was declared on 26th May, 2001 even though in the statutory notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, date of the award was specifically mentioned as 26th May, 2001.
47. For the reasons discussed hereinbefore, we are constrained to hold that in the facts of the present case, no valid award was at all passed either on 16th May, 2001 or even on 26th May, 2001. Therefore, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the property in this case stood lapsed on account of failure to make an award by the Collector within the prescribed period as provided in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
48. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly allowed the writ petition upon holding that the entire proceedings for acquisition of the property in this case stood lapsed.
49. This appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
50. We, however, record our strong displeasure about the functioning and conduct of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector and other officers of the Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal who were directly concerned with the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the property in question of the respondents/writ petitioners. Various illegalities and/or irregularities committed by or at the instance of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector and other senior officers of Land & Land Reforms Department as mentioned hereinbefore cannot be ignored by this Court.
51. We, therefore, direct the Principal Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal to conduct a thorough enquiry in respect of the conduct of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector and other superior officers who were responsible for making an attempt to pass an award in a lapsed proceeding with an intention to benefit the Calcutta Police authorities and prejudice the interests of the respondents/writ petitioners in an illegal manner. Needless to mention that the said Principal Secretary will conduct the enquiry in the light of our observations recorded hereinbefore and also taking note of the various office notes of the Land Acquisition Collector and other officers which are recorded in the note sheets of the office file produced before this Court. The said Principal Secretary will consider specially the office notes dated 16th May, 2001, office copy of the notice prepared under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Form No. 15 and the Collector's copy of the proceedings under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in Form No. 13, which are also kept in the office file produced before this Court. After conducting the aforesaid enquiry, Principal Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal will identify the officers who were responsible for committing various illegalities and/or irregularities in relation to the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings and take suitable disciplinary action against them strictly in accordance with law.
52. The Registrar (Administration) is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment together with the office file produced earlier before this Court by the learned Advocate of the appellants containing note- sheets, Collector's copy of the proceedings under Section 11 of Act I of 1894 in Form No. 13 and office copy of the notice prepared under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Form No. 15 along with several other documents in a sealed cover to the Principal Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal so that the said Principal Secretary can take necessary steps pursuant to our directions recorded hereinbefore.
53. However, considering the conduct of the appellants, we also award costs assessed at 1000 G.Ms. to be paid to the respondents/writ petitioners by the said appellants within four weeks from date positively.
54. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking.
55. I agree.