- (1.) Assailing the order dated 25th, September, 2008 passed in Original Application No. 281 of 2007 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicants of original application. The impugned order read such: The case of the applicants is that one Debendranath Dey Sarkar of Baishnabghata P.S. Tallygunj Sadar, Dist. 24 Pgs. South was the owner of the subject land measuring about 48.27 acres by virtue of a partitiion suit amongst his co-sharers, hereafter referred to as the subject land, situated at Mouza Atghora, J.L. 5, Khatian No. 30. The partition deed was of the year 1945. Since after partition, said Debendranath Dey Sarkar remained in right, title and possession thereof. Out of the subject land, 47.50 acres of land were known as "Barkhel Bheri" and the rest agricultural lands. Said Debendranath Dey Sarkar died on 19.12.49, leaving behind his wife Mrinalini who died on 23.6.90, son Hirendranath Dey Sarkar also since deceased on 24.10.02 and three daughters viz., Renuka Ghosh, Latika Basu and Sefalika Basu since all deceased. Hirendranath Ghosh left behind him his son Rahul, daughters Swapna and Krishna Dutta. Renuka Ghosh left behind four daughters and Latika Basu left behind three sons and one son's widow. This is as per the genealogy chart mentioned in the application. It is the case of the applicants that the properties left by Dhirendranath Dey Sarkar were equally inherited by his son Hirendranath and wife Mrinalini according to Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 and Hindu Women Right to Property (Amendment Act) 1938 from 1.4.37 as interpreted in a decision of the Federal Court, reported in , AIR 1941 F.C 72. Thus, the widow, Mrinalini became the owner of half of 47.50 acres of non agricultural land. The said widow had to depend upon her son Hirendranath Dey Sarkar during the settlement operation under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. It revealed that the entire property left by Debendranath Dey Sarkar stood recorded in the name of his son Hirendranath Dey Sarkar alone and the R.S. record of rights to the effect was claimed to be erroneous. Further more, widow Mrinalini by a registered deed in the year 1960 created a trust appointing her son Hirendranath as a sole trustee in respect of the trust property which was to be administered in terms of the recital in the trust deed. However, in the R.S., there was omission of recording of 5 acres of land. The names of subsequent purchasers from said Hirendranath Dey Sarkar from the R.S. recorded land stood recorded during L.R. settlement works. In the year 1976, a proceeding was initiated under Section 14T(3) under the WBLR Act, where Hirendranath Dey Sarkar was allowed to retain 17.22 acres of land and 11 decimal of land was vested, considering the raiyat's family as a five members unit and the land as non irrigated. Till that time, no proceeding under the WBEA Act was initiated either in the name of Hirendranath or her mother Mrinalini. In the year 1986 the Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 6(5) of the WBEA Act, upon submission of B form by said Hirendranath for retention and vesting of ceiling excess land. In that proceeding, an ex parte order was passed allowing retention of 15 acres non agricultural land and directing vesting of 10.68 acres of non agricultural land. It is the submission that no notice was served in the said proceeding. It is alleged that after initiation of a 7A proceeding, being case No. 31/76. there was no warrant to initiate a 6(5) proceeding under the WBEA Act. The order of vesting was challenged to be contrary to law. It was also alleged that no notice under Section 10(2) of the WBEA Act was served and as such, said order of vesting cannot be effective inasmuch as the interest of intermediary for retention of land could not be affected even thereafter. On coming to know about the vesting in the B.R proceeding the applicant, said Hirendranath filed an application for correction of record of right, but it was not done. Again in the year 1992, on the basis of the amended Act, 1981, a notice was purportedly issued as the raiyat did not file any return in form 7AA, though the concerned raiyat had no knowledge of such notice and in that proceeding taking the raiyat's family as four members unit, 17.22 acres of land was ordered to be retained and the rest 14.44 acres to be vested and for taking over possession notice was issued for appearance on 11.9.92 and on that date, the concerned raiyat was shown absent, though no notice was served. That was the proceeding in connection with reopening of the earlier proceeding under the provision of the WBLR Act. In that proceeding, the raiyat was held to hold land 31.66 acres and 14 bighas were held to have been transferred. However, according to the concerned raiyat about 5 acres of land were not accounted for in the R.S. record of right. It is alleged that Revenue Officer concerned did not take note of the character of the trust properties and the effect of sale of such properties too. It was the case of the applicants that widow Mrinalini was the owner of half share of non agricultural land. But that has not been considered and thereby the subject land was illegally ordered to vest. As no steps taken for correction of record of right, the applicants filed OA 2519/00 and that application was disposed of by this Tribunal directing the BLLRO, Sonarpur to supply the record of rights and challenging that order, a writ application was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Court by an order dated 27.4.01 directed this Tribunal to dispose of the application as filed by the applicant Hirendranath. Thereafter this Tribunal by an order dated 4.7.01 directed to re-hear 14T(3) case No. 31/76 afresh and as was not done, a contempt application was filed and by an order dated 25.1.02, 14T(3) case No. 31/76 was ordered to be stayed and the applicant was given opportunity to file an application under Section 50 and pursuant thereto, the concerned authority initiated a misc. case No. 1/02 and order was passed for correction of record of rights taking into account the transfer effected by the said raiyat for which L.R. appeal No. 49/02 was filed before the DLLRO, Alipore and the said appeal is pending for decision before the SDLLRO. Baruipur. Meanwhile, the concerned raiyat Hirendranath died and a 7A proceeding case No. 1/01 was initiated and disposed of without hearing the legal heirs for which appeal No. 55/05 was filed before the DLLRO, Alipore and pending for hearing. During such pendency, the applicants as the legal heirs of deceased Hirendranath filed an application on 15.7.05 before the DLLRO, 24 Pgs. South for review of the 6(5) proceeding by laying the claim of half share of the total non agricultural land left by Debendranath under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. As no action was taken to review the said proceeding, OA 2729/ 05 was filed and this Tribunal by an order dated 7.6.06 dismissed the said application challenging which the applicants went before the Hon'ble High Court in WPLRT No. 468/06 and the Hon'ble Court by an order dated 8.8.06 set aside the order dated 7.6.06 passed by this Tribunal and directed BLLRO, Sonarpur to take necessary steps of hearing the applicants and private Respondents and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. The Hon'ble Court also granted an interim order of status quo. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was accordingly communicated to the BLLRO, Sonarpur which was received by them on 24.8.06 and the appropriate proceeding was initiated long after the receipt of the order. The applicants appeared at the hearing on 18.10.06 and till 8.1.07, no further notice was received and on 9.1.07 they came to know about the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order dated. 18.10.06 was claimed to be antedated. At any rate, the impugned order is assailed to be a very cryptive one without any reasons and without any review of the order passed in B.R. 523/86 and accordingly, the order is liable to be set aside. At the hearing, the provision of law as to entitlement of half of the share of the total of non agricultural land by the widow was canvassed and also judgment of the Federal Court was quoted, but the same was not considered for which the impugned order required to be quashed. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.10.06 as the said order was not in the true spirit of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 8.8.06. Accordingly, prayer was made not to give further effect or to act pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.10.06 and to issue direction for review B.R. case No. 523/86, so that 50 per cent share of the total of non agricultural land left by Debendranath could be accounted for as the land of widow Mrinalini and for forbearing to make a settlement till such decision. The application No. O.A. 281/07 was accordingly admitted and direction was issued for steps for effecting service and calling for the records. Thereafter affidavit in opposition was filed by state Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The opposition was sworn by BLLRO in the office of the Respondent No. 2. In the opposition, it was contended that the application was not maintainable being barred under the provision of 10(2) and 10(3) of the WBLRTT Act, 1997. It was the submission in opposition that R.S record of right was framed Under Section 44(2) of the WBEA Act in the name of the intermediary concerned and such recording got presumptive value Under Section 44(4) of the WBEA Act. It was further contended that the intermediary concerned Hirendranath Dey Sarkar filed return in form B and it was never agitated against the recording of his name or non recording of the name of his mother. OA 2519/00 was also filed, so also other applications thereto claiming inheritance of 47.50 acres of land by him alone. But challenging L.R record of right in the name of some other persons, he filed an application for correction of record of right in his name. The applicants filed an application for review of the proceeding only on 15.7.05 before the DLLRO, South 24 Pgs which is an after thought attempt to hold excess land. No application by Hirendranath or his mother was ever filed challenging the R.S. record of rights. On the other hand, Hirendranath filed B form for retention of 25.68 acres of non agricultural land. The mother of Hirendranath also did not file any choice of retention and after about 50 years of the finality of the matter, they have risen up claiming the right on account of deceased Mrinalini. On the basis of the direction in O.A. 2519/00, the matter was dealt with under Section 50 of the WBLR Act against which appeal No. 49/02 was filed and pending and as regards determination of ceiling under Section 14T(3) another appeal No. 55/05 was filed and pending. Further more, in OA 2729/05 all the aspects were dealt with by this Tribunal and thereafter WPLRT No. 468/06 also stood disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court and the matter was attended to and disposed of by the impugned order. It was asserted that on the basis of choice of retention, intermediary Hirendranath was allowed to retain 15 acres of non agricultural land and the rest 10.68 acres remained vested. There was no question of violation of the natural justice as the intermediary concerned was very much present at the hearing. The possession of the vested land was also taken over in accordance with law. In the above view of the matter, it was contended in the affidavit in opposition that the instant application was fit to be dismissed. As against the affidavit in opposition, the applicants filed an affidavit in reply more or less reiterating their case as made out in O.A. 281/07. It was contended that the question of limitation and non availing of the remedial measures was advanced at the time of hearing on the point of admission, but those contentions stood negatived and there was no occasion to re-agitate those points. It was reiterated that widow Mrinalini was entitled to proportionate share of non agricultural land under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act which was also fortified by the Federal Court decision and other decisions quoted by them. The order required a searching scrutiny as to the transfer of some of the properties of the subject land, despite being within the trust property. At any rate, a proceeding against the intermediary Mrinalini was required to initiate and her share should not have been clubbed with the land of intermediary Hirendranath and in OA 2513/05 was submitted to be not in accordance with law and the case advanced by the applicants for which Hon'ble Court directed BLLRO, Sonarpur to review the said B.R case, but the review was not made, keeping in view of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and the provision of law as advanced in the written argument and oral submission. The prayer made in the original application was accordingly reiterated in the affidavit in reply filed by them. The matter was heard with reference to the averments in the application and annexures thereto; the affidavit in opposition, the affidavit in reply and the respective submission advanced by the parties as also the proposition of law and cited decision. We have also perused the reports and the record of rights as produced by the State authorities during hearing. The main submission on behalf of the applicants were found to be reiterating their case that in view of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and the amendment Act 1938 read with judgment of the Federal Court reported in , AIR 1941 FC 72, the widow of Debendra Nath Dey Sarkar is entitled to inherit half of the share of the properties i.e. 23 and odds acres of non-agricultural lands and in respect of the trust property created in the name of 'Smt. Mrinalini Dey Sarkar Trust Estate' both the son and the mother are to be the owners of 50% share of the said property. It is the submission that R.S. record of rights were erroneously prepared recording the entire property in the name of son only i.e. Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar and also B.R. case No. 523/86 under Section 6(1) of the WBEA Act, 1953. It was further contended that in O.A. No. 2519 of 2000 (LRTT) this Tribunal by order dated 4.7.2001 while quashing the orders both of 1976 and 1992 proceedings, directed the BL and LRO, Sonarpur to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with the amended provisions of the WBLR Act considering the total of land held by him on 15.2.71 and the size of the family as on that date within specified time, as a result of which Misc. Case No. 417 of 2001 was initiated and disposed of on 19.4.2002 and challenging the said order LR appeal No. 49 of 2002 stood filed and is still pending. However, in proceeding under Section 14T(3) started by the BL and LRO, Sonarpur in misc. case No. 1 of 2001 the said proceeding was disposed of by the order dated 26.8.2002 and in that proceeding there was no disclosure of the nature of sale deeds by the intermediary as no transfer was effected in respect of any land as also the entire trust property should not have been included and challenging the said order LR Appeal No. 55 of 2005 was filed and is still pending (at some places reference is made as LR Appeal No. 50 of 2005). The copies of memo of both the appeals were filed pursuant to our direction. It is the submission in the supplementary affidavit that when such proceedings were drawn, the applicants had no knowledge about the entitlement of the widow of the deceased to inherit half of the property left by Debendranath Dey Sarkar as regards non-agriculture lands. So, the prayer for review was made in respect of B.R. Case No. 523 of 1986 under Section 6(1) of the WBEA Act. But as no action was taken O.A. No. 2729 of 2005 was filed and this Tribunal by order dated 7.6.06 rejected the prayer and the applicants went before the Hon'ble Court in WPLRT No. 468 of 2006 and the Hon'ble Court by order dated 8.8.06 has set aside the order and directed the BL and LRO to review the order dated 22.10.86 in B.R. case No. 523 of 1986 and the result is the impugned order dated 18.10.06 passed in the said review proceeding which is now assailed before this Tribunal. It is submitted that the impugned order is a cryptic one and not in accordance with the direction in the order passed in WPLRT No. 468 of 2006. On the other hand, the submission of the Ld. Govt. Representative was that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of law and there can be no ground for making any interference. It was contended that till before the filing of the review application on 15.7.05 before the DL&LRO, 24 Parganas for a review of the 6(1) proceeding, there was no any whisper as to non-recording of any part of the subject land in the name of the widow Mrinalini both during the Rs as well as LR Operation works and this Tribunal by order dated 7.6.06 rejected such prayer in O.A No. 2729 of 2005 (LRTT). It was contended that pursuant to order passed in WPLRT No. 468 of 2006 the BL and LRO considered and disposed of the review matter by order dated 18.10.06 and that too upon consideration of all materials and provisions of law and also hearing both the parties. It was the submission that the prayer for review of the BR proceeding was an afterthought one with a view to grab land more than the prescribed ceiling. Upon having had given due consideration to the submission made by the parties and also upon having had considered the materials on record we are pleased to dispose of the matter by passing the order following thereafter: Decision with reasons: It is matter of record that the R.S. record of rights was framed and finally published recording the subject land in the name of the intermediary Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar alone. Such recording according to the provision of Section 44(4) of the WBEA Act attained finality and got the presumptive value. At no stage of RS settlement work, any dispute was raised by Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar or by Mrinalini, mother of Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar, since both deceased, challening the correctness of the record of rights. Materials on record disclosed that said Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar submitted return in Form 'B' treating the entire lands as his own and the subsequent proceeding followed in accordance therewith. In other words, it was the disclosure made that the entire 47.50 acres of land were inherited by him alone. It further appears that during the LR settlement, while dispute could have been raised as to fictitious transfer by several deeds from the subject land, no point could be raised as to non recording of any portion of the subject land in the name of Mrinalini, since deceased, widow of deceased Debendra Nath Dey Sarkar. It is further revealed that counter to such fictitious transfer OA No. 2519 of 2000 was filed and an order for initiating a proceeding under Section 50 of the WBLR Act got obtained and having lost the case, LR appeal No. 49 of 2002 got filed and said appeal is still pending and in that proceeding there was no any whisper as to alleged erroneous R.S. record of rights in the subject plots. So also no any prayer was made by said Mrinalini during her lifetime. Again, as against the determination of ceiling under Section 14T(3), the concerned intermediary appeared and under the provision of law certain land stood vested and challenging that order the LR appeal No. 55 of 2005 was filed and said to be still pending. From the memorandum of this appeal as submitted pursuant to our direction, there appears nothing to hold that the question of record of rights as regards 50% share out of total 47.50 acres of non-agricultural land was ever raised for adjudication. In other words, during the lifetime both of Hirendranath Dey Sarkar as well as Mrinalini, the question of alleged erroneous R.S. record of rights did never arise and only after their deaths that the present applicants i.e. legal heirs of Hirendranath Dey Sarkar have come forward to present a case that 50% of the non-agricultural land out of total 47.50 acres ought to have been recorded in the name of Mrinalini and ought not to have been clubbed with the land of Hirendranath Dey Sarkar. As in Section 44(4) of the WBEA Act, the matter of finality as to the record of rights under the WBLR Act has attained in view of the provisions of Section 51A(9) of the WBLR Act. As under Section 44(2a) of the WBEA Act as to the raising of dispute about the finally published R.S. record of rights, under the LR Act there is provision of different stages of settlement works like filing objection under Section 51A(1) against draft publication and provision for filing application under Section 51A(1) as against final publication of the record of rights though within time prescribed under the said provision. The resort to the remedies could have been availed of by appropriate application and even suo moto by the authorities concerned. In the present case as already pointed out no such resort was taken by the Hirendra Nath Dey Sarkar or by Mrinalini since both deceased, during their lifetime, neither the authorities concerned ever raised any suo moto proceeding. We have considered the anxious submission of the learned Advocate for the applicants as to the question of inheritance of at least 50% of the non-agricultural land left by Debendra Nath Dey Sarkar by his wife Mrinalini under the provisions of Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 in terms of the judgment by the Federal Court in , AIR 1941 FC 72 and also the decisions reported in , AIR 1968 Cal. 83 copies of which were produced before us at the time hearing. There is no disputing the proposition of law as annunciated in the earlier judgment , AIR 1941 FC 72 to contend that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the amended Act 1938 did not operate to regulate to succession to agricultural land in the Governor's provinces and do operate to regulate devolution by survivorship of property other than agricultural land and that the subject of devolution by survivorship of property other than agricultural land is included in entry 7 of List 3. the concurrent list. In the later decision , AIR 1968 Cal 83) the Hon'ble Court in para 18 observed that the Federal Court in the said judgment (AIR 1911 FC 72) construed the word 'property' in a restricted sense as to exclude agricultural land and came to the conclusion that no part of the Act, namely, Hindu Women's Rights to Property was beyond the legislature's powers. In that judgment the observation of the Federal Court was quoted as, "... No doubt if the Act does affect agricultural land in the Governor's provinces, it was beyond the competence of the Legislature to enact it, and whether or not it does so must depend upon the meaning which is to be given to the word 'property' in the Act. In that word necessarily and inevitably comprises all forms of property, including agricultural land, then clearly the Act went beyond the powers of the legislature; but when a legislature with limited and restricted power makes use of a word of such wide and general import, the presumption must surely be that it is using it with reference to that kind of property with respect to which it is competent to legislate and to no other.......". However, in the later decision there involved a case of pre-emption and the question arose whether the vendor's husband died before or after the Constitution came into force i.e. 26th January, 1950. There the lower appellate Court sent back the matter on remand for a fresh decision after consideration whether the vendor's husband died after the enforcement of the constitution and in the event the vendor's husband died after that enforcement, the pre-emption was to be dismissed as after the enforcement of the constitution, the legislative incompetence was held not to continue as regards agricultural land in the Governor's provinces. Such order of remand was held to be not appropriate deducing ratio from the Federal Court's judgment as referred to above. While not disputing the above proposition of law, the subject land being pre-dominantly non-agricultural one, the question remains whether the matter has now assumed the question of adjudication of right, title and interest pure and simple. After all, revenue record of rights is not a document of title and it has got presumptive subject to rebuttal. There is no disputing that neither Hirendranath Dey Sarkar nor Mrinalini Dey during their lifetime ever raised any such dispute about the erroneous R.S. record of rights on the basis of which the vesting proceeding both under the provisions of WBEA Act under Section 6(1) as well as under the WBLR Act under Section 14T(3) got initiated. It is not that no option was exercised or no hearing was given to the intermediary R.S. recorded owner. To recall 'B' form was submitted exercising choice of retention when the entire property were shown to be on the ownership of the intermediary Hirendranath Dey Sarkar alone. It was a question of a statutory vesting under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the WBEA Act and unless the intermediary chooses to exercise retention, the entire estate of the intermediary stood vested. Undisputedly, no any choice of retention stood filed even by Mrinalini Devi and as such the share if any on her account due to non-retention stood vested free from all encumbrances with the notification under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the WBEA Act. To reiterate, the intermediary, Hirendranath Dey Sarkar submitted 'B' form for retention of non-agricultural land of 25.68 acres and he was allowed to retain 15 acres of non-agricultural land and the remaining 10.68 acres recorded as 'bill' vested to the State. Now the legal heirs of the intermediary have agitated that 50% of the non-agricultural land was to be inherited by widow Mrinalini and that amount of land was to be excluded from the total land accounted in the name of their predecessor-in-interest Hirendranath Dey Sarkar. Not only that such approbation and reprobation are not permissible after a lapse of about 50 years coupled with non-availing of all the remedial measures for correction of the record of rights under the relevant provisions of the Act but that the matter has assumed the complexion of adjudication of right, title and interest which the revenue authorities are ill-equipped to undertake keeping in view the presumptive value of the record of rights as an act of possession. We do. not think that any other order could have been forthcoming keeping in view the provision of law and the factual background of the case even by way of any appeal. We must make a note of observation as to the impugned order being not lucid and analytic too reflecting all the question of law involved but we refused to interfere on the ground that the inevitable outcome according to our perception of factual background and proposition of law applicable thereto could not have been different. In the above view of the matter we see no merit in making any interference in the impugned order dated 18.10.06 and accordingly O.A. No. 281 of 2007 (LRTT) stands dismissed. Let a plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made over the learned Govt. Representative for onward communication to the authorities concerned and certified xerox copy to the parties in accordance with law. I agree. B.N. Das(Judicial Member) Md. M.J. Iqbal (Admn. Member) Major Question of law involved in writ application:
(2.) An important question of law about right of acquiring ownership over non-agricultural land by application of law of inheritance/succession to resist order of vesting of the said property to the State under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 by exercising right to retain the said vested land by the legal heirs of one Mrinalini who inherited the property as a life interest holder under Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 initially and became full owner of said properties under application of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 whether could be given effect to on application of relevant acts and rules namely Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, for brevity hereinafter referred to as Act of 1937, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hereinafter for brevity referred to as Succession Act, 1956, West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 read with Rules thereafter hereinafter for brevity referred to as WBEA Act, 1953 and the concerned rules and constitutional provisions protecting property rights qua livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is the subject matter for our decision. Admitted facts:
(3.) One Debendra Nath Dey Sarkar was the owner of 47.50 acres of non-agricultural land recorded in the cadestral settlement records of rights and in revisional settlement record of rights prepared under Bengal Tenancy Act and West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act respectively as 'beel'. Debendranath died intestate on 19th December, 1949 leaving behind one son Hirendranath and widow Mrinalini. At the relevant time of death Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 was existing. Mrinalini inherited half portion of said property as a life interest holder in terms of Section 3 of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 in equal share with son Hidrendranath. West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 came into effect from 12th February, 1954. A bigrayat proceeding was initiated under Section 6(5) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act by considering said non-agricultural land as of Hirendranath, wherein Hirendranath by submitting 'B' form retained admissible non-agricultural land retainable out of non-agricultural land of 47.50 acres recorded as Beel, 10.68 acres of said land was vested to the State under West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. The Revenue Officer passed order of vesting on 22nd October. 1986. After the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 came into effect Mrinalini on application of" Section 14 of the said Act exercised her right as a full owner of proportionate share of non-agricultural land possessed by her as life interest holder in view of transposition of her legal status from limited life interest holder to full ownership by application of Section 14 of the said Act and a deed of trust in respect of her property was made wherefrom some portion of the land was sold. Purchaser became riyat and record of rights was prepared in his name accordingly. An application seeking review of the order of vesting was filed by legal heris of Mrinali and Hirendra, contending, inter alia, that Mrinalini who became the life interest holder of half portion of the property measuring 47.50 acres of non-agricultural land, namely the concerned beel on application of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. became absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 and the legal heirs of Mrinalini, after Mrinalini breathed last on 23rd June, 1990. was legally entitled to retain the said property which was below the ceiling limit exercising choice to retain the property in terms of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. 1953. This application since was not considered seeking correction of R.S. records of rights as finally prepared under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. matter was moved before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in Original Application No. 2729 of 2005 which stood dismissed. An application under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India registered as WPLRT No. 468 of 2006. assailing the order of the Learned Tribunal below dated 15th July, 2005 passed in the said original application was moved. The Hon'ble Division Bench (Cor. Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Ashim Kumar Roy, JJ.) by the order dated 8th August. 2006 in said WPLRT No. 468 of 2006, quashed and set aside the order of the Learned Tribunal dated 7th June, 2006 and directed the concerned B.L.L.R.O, Sonarpur, for taking necessary steps by hearing the writ Petitioner as well as other Respondents on the issue in question and to pass an appropriate order in respect of declaration as declared by the concerned authority in the impugned order dated 22nd October, 1986 in Bigrayat case No. 523 of 1986. In pursuance of the said order the Revenue Officer heard the matter and without adjudicating anything repeated his views rejecting the prayer, which again was challenged before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 281 of 2007 (LRTT).;