Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J. - (1.) After hearing the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State Respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the section 5 application, we find that sufficient grounds have been made out by the petitioners for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. According, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed and the appeal now be registered if it is otherwise in form subject however on payment of costs and the hearing fee assessed at 20 gms. to be paid by the appellant petitioners to the learned Advocate for the State respondents within 7 days from date. In default the order for condonation of delay will stand recalled and the interim order already granted shall stand vacated. Re : Application for injunction dated 11.8.97. After the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned, both the appeal and application for injunction are taken up together by consent of parties and are disposed of in the following manner : In view of the fact that some lands had being transferred by the original Raiyat in favour of the writ petitioners might be his heirs, in 1959 and 1966 under no stretch of imagination the lands could be taken into account for considering the ceiling limits of Raiyat, as it stood on 15th February, 1971 and the said transferred lands would from the lands of the transferer and the vendor would have no right, title and interest therein since the date of such transfers. If excluding such transferred lands, the total lands of original raiyat as held on 15th February, 1971 falls outside the ceiling limits, then any proceeding under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 could be started against him.
(2.) From Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, which is an order sheet of the proceeding under section 14T(3), it appears that while disposing of the matter, the Revenue Officer by his order dated 18.5.95 held that the raiyat held no land as per section 3A of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and such as, the Third Amendment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1986 cannot be taken up for consideration while assessing the ceiling limits. The Revenue Officer, accordingly,-set aside the order of vesting previously passed on 30.3.95. The Revenue Officer further held the raiyat's family was entitled to retain 6.18 acres of land on 15.2.71 and no excess land was detected.
(3.) In such view of the matter, entire proceeding under sections 14T(3), 14T(5), 14T(9), 14T(10) and 14T(11) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 being case No. 15 of 1997, and all order passed therein, as well as the subsequent notices at pages 26 and 27 of the Stay application stand quashed, so far as the impugned order under challenge in appeal is concerned, in view of the fact the Division Bench in its decision reported in Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1996)2 Cal. HN 212 has held inter alia, that provision of section 14V vis-a-vis the definition of 'land' as contained in section 2(7) and section 3A(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1981 and 1996 are ultra vires. Article 300A of the Constitution of India no further scope is left with the Revenue Officer to start any proceeding under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in respect of the lands as defined in section 2(7) of the act as amended by the Amended Acts of 1981 and 1986.;