Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 10th September, 1971 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Midnapore reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The suit was instituted by one Gagan Chandra Bhattacharya who having died, the present appeal has been preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The plaintiff was a big raiyat. He filed 'B' form to retain lands including the lands in dispute in the suit. When the Compensation Assessment Roll was published in respect of the lands including the lands in dispute, the plaintiff realized that due to inadvertence, the character of the lands as shown in 'B' form submitted by him was wrong. It has been alleged that because of the said wrong description of the character of land, the land in dispute had been shown as vested and the compensation was determined on that basis. As soon as the said mistake was detected by him on perusal of the Compensation Assessment Roll, the plaintiff filed before the Compensation Officer an objection in writing on 27th June, 1966 under Section 15 A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Along with the said objection, the plaintiff also filed an amended 'B' form dated 27th June, 1966. By the order dated 16th June, 1967, in B.R. Case No. 107, the Revenue Officer held that inasmuch as the possession of all the lands for which the 'B' form was furnished on 27th June, 1966, had already been taken over under Section 10(2) of the said Act by the J.L.R. O., the plaintiff was not allowed to retain any more land. He directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to retain 23.41 acres of agricultural land, 2.43 acres of non-agricultural land and 40 acre of homestead land. He held that 6.38 acres of agricultural land and 08 acre of non-agricultural land vested in the State. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was entitled to retain 1.59 acre of agricultural land and 18 decimal of non-agricultural land as described in the Schedule to the plaint and as claimed and shown by him in the amended 'B' form submitted on 27th June, 1966. According to the plain tiff the said land could never have been vested in the State. Apart from the State of West Bengal, there are other defendants to the said suit being defendant Nos. 2 to 6 who were made parties inasmuch as it was alleged that they had obtained licenses in respect of the land in dispute in the suit from the State.
(2.) The 1st defendant, State of West Bengal, contested the suit and filed written statement denying all material gations contained in the plaint. It 1 been alleged that in the said B.R. C by the order dated 3rd January, 1960, the plaintiff was allowed to retain 22.931/2 acres of agricultural land, 2.40 acres of non-agricultural land and 43 acre of homestead land. Ultimately the plaintiff was allowed to retain land by the order dated 16th June, 1967 as mentioned earlier. The learned Munsif on appreciation of the evidence tendered before him came to the finding that State of West Bengal failed to prove that the possession of the land in dispute was taken by the Government or by the alleged licensees. He further came to the finding that the said B.R. case was disposed of without any consideration of the plaintiff's case. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he held that the plaintiff was entitled to retain 1.59 acre of agricultural land and 18 decimal of non-agricultural land as claimed by him in the suit which are within the prescribed ceiling. He also held that the plaintiff had right, title and interest and possession of the suit land. According to him, the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff was entitled to decree as prayed for. He, therefore, decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff in the land in dispute. It was also declared that the land in dispute had not vested in the State and the defendants were therefore permanently "restrained from disturbing the plaintiff's possession in the land in question.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, State of West Bengal preferred an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that there is no provision in the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 for filing second 'B' option form. He held that it was not open to the plaintiff to file a second 'B' option form by agitating that the character of some of the properties' was not correctly described in the first 'B' option form. According to him, Section 15A of the said Act provides for preferring objection the compensation Assessment Roll prepared under section 15 (5) and it does not enable the big raiyat to file the second 'B' option form. According to him, the plaintiff misread the scope of Section 15A of the said Act. He further held that after preferring an objection under Section 15A, it was open to him to prefer an appeal under Section 20 of the said Act. In any case, rejection of the second 'B' option form by the Revenue Officer did not afford to the plaintiff a cause of action to file the present suit against the State of West Bengal. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant, State of West Bengal.;