- (1.) In this Rule the petitioner company is disputing the final order dated May 4, 1971 passed in a proceeding which in substance is a proceeding for review of an earlier order for retention obviously made under section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
(2.) The petitioner is the successor-in-interest of the Midnapore Zemindary Company Ltd. which company was admittedly an intermediary holding extensive properties prior to the enforcement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. It is not in dispute that practically the entire estate of the company vested on the enforcement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. On April 10, 1956 admittedly this company wanted to retain certain lands on the basis that it is entitled to do so under the provisions of section 6. In this return the company wanted to retain certain lands in the category of homestead under section (6) (1) (a), certain other lands as appertaining to building and structures under section 6(1)(b), certain lands as non-agricultural land under Section (6)(1)(c), certain lands in the category of agricultural land in khas possession under Section 6(1)(d) and certain tank-fisheries and orchards under Sections 6(1) (e) and 6(1) (f). There is no dispute that on the return so filed the lands in the category of homestead lands, non-agricultural lands and agricultural lands were within the ceiling. But as no ceiling is provided by the statute in respect of the lands coming under Sections 6(1) (b) 6(1) (e) and 6(1) (f), the company wanted to retain certain areas in such categories which were somewhat extensive in character. There can be no dispute if those lands belong to those categories there being no schedule, company was entitled to retain as such.
(3.) Now the company having filed its return in the year 1956 was allowed to retain the lands thus opted for retention. Since such retention the company had not only transferred various plots out of the plot so allowed to be retained but some areas had been acquire by the government under the provisions of different Land Acquisition Acts. Though there is some controversy between the petitioner and the respondents on the present pleadings as to the extent of lands transferred by the petitioner company after retention, the respondents have not been able to deny the position that some of the lands allowed to be retained were subsequently acquired by the Government as retained land of the Company and some again were transferred by private sale.;