Dd 29-34 19.06.2025 MAT/1248/2024 ORISSA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED VS SANTANU SANTRA AND ORS IA NO: CAN/1/2024, CAN/2/2024 WITH MAT/1483/2017 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS VS SANTANU SANTRA WITH MAT/1249/2024 ORISSA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED VS GOPA RANI SANTRA AND ORS IA NO: CAN/1/2024, CAN/2/2024 WITH MAT/1485/2017 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS VS GOPA RANI SANTRA WITH MAT/1250/2024 ORISSA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED VS NIRMAL KUMAR SANTRA AND ORS IA NO: CAN/1/2024, CAN/2/2024 WITH MAT/1484/2017 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS VS NIRMAL KUMAR SANTRA Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Mr. R. N. Ghose, Ms. Tonoya Ghose, Ms. Shusna Santra Ms. Pritha Ghose, Advocates … … For the Appellants in MAT/1248/2024 MAT/1249/2024 MAT/1250/2024 2 Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Mr. Aritra Shantra Roy, Advocates … … For the Respondents/writ petitioners Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Advocates .. …For the State/Appellant MAT/1483/2017 MAT/1485/2017 MAT/1484/2017 1. Six appeals are taken up for analogous consideration as they emanate out of the same impugned orders passed in thee several writ petitions. Subject matters of the three writ petitions are similar. 2. Out of the six appeals, three appeals are at the behest of the State of West Bengal and its functionaries. Three other appeals are at the behest of appellants who were granted leave to appeal. However, applications for condonation of delay filed by such appellants are yet to be disposed of. 3. Subject matter of appeals and the writ petitions revolved around acquisition proceedings. 4. Learned Single Judge returned a finding that, possession was taken and award was published. Possession and award were under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. Writ petitioners sought compensation in respect of acquisition. 6. Appellants who were granted leave to appeal, claim that the possession of the immovable properties was made over to such appellants by the State and that, acquisition was made at the request of the appellants. Appellants granted leave to appeal were 3 not parties in the writ petition in which the impugned orders were passed. 7. There is a delay of 7 years in making and filing the appeal by such appellants. 8. Delay is sought to be explained on the ground of no knowledge of pendency of the writ petition and the impugned order till such time, they gained knowledge of the same. Gaining of knowledge was pegged on a date, when State authorities sought to take possession from such appellants. From that date, such appellants took steps for the purpose of filing their appeals. 9. Court is to consider the quality of the explanation given rather quantum of the delay. 10. In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that, the appellants before us explained the delay adequately. 11. In such circumstances, we allow the application for condonation of delay of the three appellants who were granted leave to appeal. 12. Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record. 13. CRAN 2 of 2024 in MAT/1248/2024, MAT/1249/ 2024 and MAT/1250/2024 are disposed of. 14. List all the six appeals on June 23, 2025. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)