PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,J. - (1.) It appears that the stay petition has been filed in the year 1999, but no steps have been taken by the State for a long time. It further appears that Award was published in the matter and subsequently against the said Award, the appeal was preferred before the L.A. Judge. The L. A. Judge has also passed an order on 22nd December, 1995. It appears that the appeal has been filed before this Court after a long time even after the limitation period and further that too could not be moved more than two years. Ultimately, the matter came up before us and it has been stated that the application should be reconstructed, being CAN 689 of 1999 in this appeal so filed by the State authorities.
(2.) The facts of the case reveal that pursuant to the possession taken by the State authorities on 10th December, 1976, the Notification was issued on 15th December, 1979. The Collector passed the Award on 9th January, 1981 which was challenged before the L. A. Judge by the respondents. Subsequently, the L.A. Judge on 22nd December, 1995, set aside the order of the Collector and assessed the amount and passed a decree in L.R.A. Case No.785 of 1982(V) in favour of the respondents enhancing the amount of Award from Rs. 16,050/- per acre to Rs. 4,71,430/- per acre.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order and judgment, this appeal has been filed before this Court. It appears that since then, no steps have been taken.;