- (1.)IN this Rule, the initiation of a proceeding for review of an adjudication made under section 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in Case No. 226 (Kumargunj), 1976 by the Revenue Officer, Balurghat Settlement Camp and the notice issued to the petitioners for the aforesaid purpose, are under challenge.
(2.)THE petitioners contend that under section 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act an adjudication had already been made by the competent Revenue Officer and the petitioners and the members of their family were allowed to retain some lands in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners contend that thereafter the Revenue Officer subsequently wanted to reopen such adjudication and review the same without any authority of law. Mr. Dutt, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that under section 14 T a Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to decide the ceiling land of the petitioners and the members of their family but when Chapter I IB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act containing Section 14t was enforced there was no provision for review. The power of review was added subsequently by amending the provisions of section 14t and new subsection, namely, sub-section 3a was added to section 147 by which the Revenue Officer was empowered to review the already done under section 14t. Mr Dutt contended that sub-section (3) of Section 1 makes it clear that "section 1 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would come into force at once but the remaining provisions of the Act, in whole or in part should come into force on such date or dates and in Such district or part of a district as the State Government may from time to time by notification in the Official Gazettes specify. " mr. Dutt submitted that sub-section (3) of section 1 therefore makes it clear that all the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were not intended to be enforced all at a time but the Legislature intended that the remaining provisions either in whole or in part should be enforced from time to time, as and when the State Government would feel the necessity of enforcing such provisions and 1 the State Government would have to issue notification in the official Gazette specifying enforcement of such provisions either in whole or in part. Mr. Dutt -contended that it was not disputed by any one that section 14t was there in Chapter I IB which was inserted by the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971 and then by the West Bengali Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1972 with retrospective effect from February, 1971. Therefore, there would be no difficulty in enforcing Section 14t as it stood in terms of the said West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act 1971-1972. But subsection 3a was sought to be added subsequently by an amendment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act but no notification for enforcing such amended provision of Section 14t or more precisely the said added sub-section 3a of Section 14t was given by the State Government in terms of the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Mr. Dutt contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, sub-section 3a of Section 14t had no manner of application so long the required notification under section 1 (3) was not given by the State Government.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the State however disputed the said contentions of Mr. Dutt and submitted that when Chapter IIB was enforced containing various sections, namely, Sections 14 J to 14 Y, all the said sections including Section 14t were enforced and it was not necessary to give further notification simply because section 14t had been amended subsequently by incorporating sub-section 3a. He also submitted that in the Instant case, the petitioners appeared before the concerned Revenue Officer in terms of -the notice issued to the petitioners in connection with the said review proceeding but the petitioners took time on the ground of health but thereafter moved the instant writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the said review proceeding. Mr. Sen Gupta contended that when the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, they were not permitted to question the jurisdiction later on and on that score also the writ petition should be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, disputed the said contentions of the learned Counsel for the State that the petitioners had really submitted to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer and he further contended that in any, event there could not be any estoppel against the petitioner because the Revenue Officer inherently lacked jurisdiction and jurisdiction could not be conferred by consent.