- (1.) Leave granted. The case has a chequered history but only what is essential for the purpose of the present appeal is being set out herein below.
(2.) The Respondents in the appeal were intermediary tenure holders who challenged an order under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") before the High Court of Calcutta in a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. In appeal, the High Court by order dated 10.07.1990 issued the following operative directions: "After considering the respective contentions of the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties it appears to us that in the instant case the raiyat made a default in not exercising option but since the lands in question have not yet been taken possession and have not yet been settled with any other person, in the facts of the case, we do not think that the raiyat should be deprived of the opportunity of retaining lands by exercising a choice even at this stage. In our view, in the facts of this case the decision made in the Gour Mitra's case applies. We therefore direct that let the operation of the notice under Section 10(2) be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. The Appellant is directed to exercise his option by filing return in Form-B before the competent authority within four weeks from today. If such option is exercise within four weeks from today, the decision on notice under Section 10(2) should be kept pending until the consideration of "B" Form return is made. The competent authority will consider the question of retaining lands in accordance with law by giving opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and thereafter allow him to retain such land as may be lawfully retained under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Thereafter, in accordance with the decision to be made in the matter of retention of the lands by the Appellant-raiyat, the question of taking possession under Section 10(2) will be determined by the appropriate authority. It is, however, made clear that if within four weeks from today the Appellant raiyat fails and neglects to submit his choice of retention by filing a return in B-Form before the appropriate authority the Respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the notice under Section 10(2) without giving the raiyat any further opportunity to retained lands. The appeal is accordingly disposed of."
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the High Court, the Revenue Officer, by an order dated 15th of January, 2001, allowed the Respondents to retain the area of land specifically mentioned in the said order. It appears that certain Municipal Councillors filed a representation to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DLLRO) which was taken as an appeal and the order of the Revenue Officer dated 15.01.2001 was set aside on the ground that the intermediary i.e. Respondents were not in possession of the land. This was on 26.02.2003. The intermediary-respondents filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal which came to be disposed of on 18.05.2011, inter alia, holding that the Municipal Councillors had no right to file the appeal. The said appeal was disposed of by the learned Tribunal directing the Revenue officer to implement the order of the High Court dated 10.07.1990, details of which have been extracted above.;