1. This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court on 20th April, 2011 in W.P. No. 5419(W) of 2005 at the instance of the appellant who was respondent No. 10 in the writ proceeding.

2. The legality of the land acquisition proceeding bearing L.A. Case No. IV-10/2003-04 initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquisition of 20.70 acres of land lying and situated at Mouza Bangihati P.S. Sreerampore, District- Hooghly was challenged in the writ petition filed by the owners of the said land on various grounds such as:- i) The mandatory provision of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 has not been complied with, and ii) Objection under Section 5A of the said Act was rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector mechanically without considering the objection submitted by the land owners against the proposal for acquisition of the said land before the concerned authority, etc.

3. The legality of the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was challenged in the said writ petition. The Learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the land acquisition proceeding by holding that the entire land acquisition proceeding for acquiring the said land of the petitioner was vitiated due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rule.

4. The present mandamus appeal is directed against the said judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Trial Judge.

5. Objection regarding maintainability of this appeal at the instance of the requiring body is raised by Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent on the ground that the requiring body cannot be a party aggrieved against the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge, as no interest in the land in question having been created by publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be affected by the order of quashing of the land acquisition proceeding.

6. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of theMunicipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaldas Patel & Ors. reported in 1971(3)SCC 821wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appeal at the instant of the requiring body cannot be maintained as the requiring body cannot be held to be a party aggrieved in case declaration under Section 6 of the said Act is quashed.

7. That apart, in view of the enactment of the subsequent Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and particularly in view of the provision contained in Section 24(2) of the said Act, the present appeal has practically been rendered infractuous. With the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed. However, by virtue of the provision contained in Section 24(2) of the said Act, the land acquisition proceeding initiated under Act I of 1894 were saved in cases where award under Section 11 of the Act I of 1894 had been passed at least five years before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into effect but possession of the acquired land has not been taken.

8. Since in the present case, the land acquisition proceeding did not proceed further after publication of the declaration under Section 6 of Act I of 1894, the impugned land acquisition has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the said Act.

9. Thus, even if we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and/or order which is impugned in this appeal, still then no useful purpose will be served as the impugned land acquisition proceeding has lapsed and there is no possibility of completing the said land acquisition proceeding under Act I of 1894. Thus, we feel that the challenge which was raised with regard to the legality of the impugned order in this appeal has now practically become academic. As such we do not feel any necessity to decide the appeal on merit.

10. Before parting with, we may also consider the present problem from a different angle. Even assuming that the appeal is ultimately decided in favour of the appellant and the impugned order is set aside and the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act I of 1894 is held to be valid, still then there is no possibility of completing the land acquisition proceeding under Act I of 1894 in view of the provision contained in Section 11A of the said Act which provides that the proceeding will lapse in case award is not published within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act. In the present case, the said statutory period of two years for publication of the award has already lapsed. As such the said land acquisition proceeding cannot be completed under the said Act, even in the absence of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisiti

on, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 11. As such, we are of the view that the appeal has now become infructuous. We thus, dismiss the appeal. 12. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the application which is deemed to be disposed of. 13. The application being CAN 4028 of 2014 is thus, deemed to be disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately. Appeal dismissed.