- (1.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the disputed lands, which they have purchased from the respondent No. 6 on February 24, 1959, and February 6, 1961, are being treated by the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as vested lands. It appears that there was a proceeding under section 6 (1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. against the respondent no. 6, the vendor of the petitioners. In that proceeding the respondent no. 6 filed a return in Form 'B' retaining the disputed lands. The Revenue officer by his order no. 7 dated April 27, 1962, held that the respondent no. 6 did not possess lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, it was directed by Revenue officer that khanda khatians would be opened in the name of the respondent no. 6 in respect of the lands retained by him. Subsequently, after the lapse of about seven years, the Revenue officer reviewed his earlier order and by his order no. 10 dated February 14, 1969, pointed out that on further scrutiny it was detected that the respondent no. 6 transferred many of his lands and the said transfers are found to be bonafide under section 5A of the Act. If the same quantity of lands as transferred is deducted from the lands allowed to be retained by the respondent no. 6, in that case the respondent no. 6 will not be entitled to retain any of his khas lands Accordingly, the Revenue officer by his order directed that the khas lands of the respondent No. 6 will be treated as vested lands including the lands sold by the respondent no. 6 to the petitioners.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the said transfer which were the subject matter of the proceeding under section 5A. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled to retain the disputed lands which they have purchased from the respondent no. 6. I am. however, unable to accept this contention made on behalf of the petitioners. At the time the petitioners purchased the disputed lands from the respondent no. 6 the same vested in the State of West Bengal. It may be that the respondent no, 6 was subsequently allowed to retain his lands including the disputed lands, but really he was not entitled to retain as he made transfers of his other lands within the prohibited period under section 5A and thereby subjected himself to a deduction of the same quantity of lands from his khas lands. At the same time, it must be held that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers for value without notice and they have been made to suffer not only on account of the acts of the respondent no. 6 but also of the defaults made by the Revenue officer in not starting a proceeding under section 5A (3) (ii) within a reasonable time after the disposal of the said 5A cases. In the circumstances, the respondents should consider the question of granting settlement of the disputed land to the petitioners who are in possession of the same.
(3.) Subject to the above observation, this Rule is discharged but there will be no order as to costs.;