ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) This Reference calls for determination of the question as to whether under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, any post-vesting transferee can exercise the right of retention in terms of Section 6(5) of the said Act read with Rule 4A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954. The point of reference has not been specifically formulated by the Referring Bench. But the order of the Referring Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court passed on 6th July 2015 gives rise to this question, for answering which this Reference has been made. The petitioner in this proceeding has claimed in the writ petition that her father had purchased 42 decimal of land from one Himangshu Sekhar Maity in the year 1962. The petitioner had applied before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer of Block Patashpur II, Purba Medinipur for recordal of her name in the Record of Rights under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. It has transpired from earlier stage of the proceeding before the land authorities that the land purchased by the predecessor of the petitioner stood vested in the State under the 1953 Act at the point of time such of purchase. In the representation (annexed at page 42 of the writ petition) of the petitioner made under Section 14U (3) of the 1955 Act, she has asked for being recorded as a "post-vesting purchaser". The petitioner thereafter applied before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal seeking in substance recordal of her name in pursuance of her application. Before the Tribunal, plea of the petitioner was that vesting of the land had taken place after the said land was purchased by her predecessor in the year 1962.
(2.) The Tribunal disposed of the application of the petitioner, which was registered as O.A. No. 693 of 2012 by an order passed on 23rd April 2014, with the following observation and direction:- "It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant's father purchased the suit land by registered deed in the year 1962. Long after that the suit land was made vested in the State in a proceeding initiated under W.B.L.R. Act. Submitted further that under no circumstances the suit land may be computed to collect the total land of transferred, the applicant is entitled to get statutory relief. Ld. Government Representative submits that the suit land, as appears from the record has already distributed by patta and pattaholders name have been recorded in the L.R. record of rights, vide annexure at page 12 to the application. Having heard both sides, we do find any necessity to wait for further report from B.L &L.R.O. concerned. It appears vested was made wrongly and pattas have been issued on such land. The applicant is entitled to get statutory relief, hence we pass the following orders:- B.L. &L.R.O., Patashpur - II, District - Purba Medinipur is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant, vide annexure 'C' at page 9, if necessary pattas already issued be cancelled to provide statutory relief for the applicant within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant and other interested persons, and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The applicant is directed to serve copy of this application with all its annexure along with order passed by the Tribunal today upon the aforesaid BL and LRO within four weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. In the event of filing any application by applicant for getting certified copy of the order as directed to be made herein, the said B.L. and L.R.O., should supply the certified copy within a period of 15 days from the date of filing such application. With these terms, O.A. No. 698 of 2012 (LRTT) is disposed of." (quoted verbatim).
(3.) The petitioner has taken a stand before us, referring to the Tribunal's decision that the land having vested under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, she is entitled to exercise the right of retention under Section 14U of the said Act as a post-vesting transferee. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, (BLLRO) Patashpur - II, however, rejected the petitioner's plea holding that the subject-land stood already vested in the State under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the 1953 Act. The order of the BLLRO annexed to the writ petition does reflect the exact date of passing such order though the proceeding appears to have had been initiated before the date on which the Tribunal had disposed of O.A. 698 of 2012. It also appears that the petitioner has filed another application before the Tribunal, which has been registered as O.A. Case No. 490 of 2015 questioning the legality of the land authority's order. The writ petition giving rise to this Reference was instituted thereafter. The order of the BLLRO reads:- "The case record is put up. Both parties appear and file their hazirans. Examined the enquiry report and perused the documents filed with the case record. Heard both parties and examined all other materials on record. Possession is proved in favour of patta holder. Possession, enquiry report is seen and made part of the proceeding. i) that land scheduled in margin on 1st page has been vested in the state of W.B. under provision of section 6(1) of W.B.E.A. Act (vide B.R. case No. 274/1978). ii) The suit land got recorded in R.S. R.O.R. in favour of one Himanshu Sekhar Maity, enlisted B.R. under provision of W.B.E.A. Act. In B.R. case No. 274 of 1978, the B.R. Sri Maity stated above was allowed to retain agri. Land 25 acres, non-agri. Land 1.31 acres and Homestead land 20 acre on the date of disposal of the case on 08.12.1978. The excess ceiling limit land of 9.02 acre inclusive of suit land was surrendered for vesting in the state of W.B though the suit land had been transferred to one Gobardhan Das by virtue of Regd. Deed being No. 3187 dated 25.05.1962. iii) Date of vesting under section 6(1) of W.B.E.A. Act is declared as a fixed date on 14.04.1956. So date of disposal does bear any material validation. iv) The deed executed by the B.R. is illegal and the petitioner may be compensated by the seller of the suit land but may be given any compensation at cost of Govt's property. Hence I consider this vesting as proper fair and just in the eye of law. The petitioner's representation is duly considered and rejected." (quoted verbatim).;