D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner's land was subjected to proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and was held to be an urban vacant land. The competent authority passed the order of vesting. An appeal was preferred. The appellate authority had held an enquiry and came to a finding that the land was not an agricultural land. As such affirmed the order of the competent authority. This order of the competent authority since merged in the order of the appellate authority is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has since been repealed by Parliament through enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and as such the proceeding taken thereunder which are pending as on the date of the repeal should be treated to have been abated. He contends that though no resolution appears to have been taken by the State Government in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the 1999 Act, by reason of Article 249 of the Constitution of India the force of the 1976 Act seems to have expired and as such the repeal has cone into effect even in the State of West Bengal. However, he contended that admittedly the land was recorded in the record of rights with 'Korfa' interest in respect of 'Danga' land. In West Bengal, 'Danga' land is an agricultural land. 'Korfa' Tenancy is a tenancy under the Bengal Tenancy Act and is normally known as the 'Korfa' raiyat. According to him, on the appointed date the land was being used mainly for agricultural purposes. The 1976 Act, therefore, cannot be applied. Such application is to be considered as on the appointed date and not otherwise. Subsequent conversion will not affect the position prior to which it was so converted. He relied on the decision in Krishna Narayan Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and ors. 1979(1) CLJ 427 in support of his contention. He, therefore, contended that in view of the position in law, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to deal with the same and as such the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed and accordingly the impugned order and the proceeding should stand quashed.
(3.) Notice has been given to the State of West Bengal, the receipt of which is produced in Court. This matter was in the list for quite sometime. No one has appeared on behalf of the State to oppose the contention of Mr. Mukherjee. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.;