Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that an endowment which was the subject matter of controversy was private in nature. After so holding, the High Court directed the Revenue Officer and Ex-officio Deputy Land and Land Reforms Officer to decide afresh the matter taking note of the observations made and the findings recorded. It was directed that the decision was to be taken after affording all concerned parties opportunity of hearing. 2A. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Revenue Officer initiated proceedings registered as 3/Hoogly of 2002 under Section 14T(6, 14T(9, 14M(5) and 14M(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short the Act) to cause enquiry in order to ascertain the total extent of land held by Deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur (hereinafter referred to as the Deity) and to decide the question as to whether the endowment is of public or private nature and connected issues. It is to be noted that under the Act, the Revenue Officer is the Ex-Officio Deputy Land and Land Reforms Officer.
(3.) By order dated 3.12.2001, the Revenue Officer disposed of the proceedings allowing the Deity to retain 24.22 acres of land and directed vesting of rest of the land in the State. The Revenue Officer held that the endowment was of public nature exclusively for charitable and religious purpose and therefore was entitled to retain 7 standard hectares of land in terms of Section 14M(6) of the Act. Challenging the said order, an application numbered as O.A. 328 of 2002 was filed by the Shebaits of the said Deity before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming that the character of the Deity was private in nature. Aforesaid O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the applicants to prefer statutory appeal under the provisions of the Act before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, the designated appellate authority. Respondents preferred the statutory appeal in terms of Section 54 of the Act before the appellate authority. The appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 52 of 2002. By order dated 31.5.2002 the appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Officer.;