(1) THE only question which arises in this appeal is that land which was dedicated to the deity before the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") was enacted would fall within the purview of Section 6(1)(i) of the said Act if the proceeds or income from the said land are not being used exclusively for the benefit of the deity.

(2) THE facts briefly stated are that the land in question originally belonged to the Singha family of the Paikpara Raj. Some of the property belonging to this family was dedicated to Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiew Thakur, with which we are concerned in the present appeal. It appears that amongst the members of the family dispute arose pertaining to the manner in which the property belonging to the family was to be partitioned. Reference was first made to one Arthur Phillips to act as an arbitrator and give his award. Subsequently, Sir R.C. Mitter was appointed as an arbitrator by order dated 9-5-1892 passed in a suit which was pending between the parties. The terms of reference to the said arbitrator included the question as to which were the properties which belonged to debuttar and were, therefore, not liable to be partitioned. The arbitrator Sir R.C. Mitter gave his award and included in Schedule A-1 list of debuttar properties which, in terms of his award, were not liable for partition as the same had been dedicated to Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiew Thakur. The said award, which also dealt with the properties which could be partitioned, was then made the rule of the court.

(3) WITH the promulgation of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, all the estates stood vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 4 of the said Act. Section 6 deals with the rights of intermediaries to retain certain lands. It is not in dispute that as per the definition of the word "intermediary" occurring in Section 2(i), the shebaits were intermediaries within the meaning of the said Act. Section 6(1), inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 and 5 an intermediary shall be entitled to retain with effect from the date of vesting certain lands. We are here concerned with clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 which reads as follows:

"6. (1)(i) where the intermediary is a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or is a person holding under a trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a purpose which is charitable or religious or both land held in khas by such corporation or institution, or person, for such purpose including land held by any person, not being a tenant, by leave or licence of such corporation or institution or person."

(4) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 6 stipulates that an intermediary who is entitled to retain possession of any land under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to hold such land directly under the State from the date of vesting as a tenant, subject to such terms as may be prescribed. From the reading of Sections 4 and 6 together, it is clear that with the promulgation of the said Act, the rights of intermediaries in the estates came to an end and the said estates vested in the State Government. Section 6(l)(i) read with sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that in the case of those intermediaries which hold land exclusively for religious or charitable purposes and the land is held in khas then the said intermediaries would continue to remain in possession of the said land but they would be regarded as tenants under the State Government though they would not be liable to pay any rent.

(5) IT is not in dispute that some of the land of the debuttar was not khas land and the same had been given to tenants. In the present case, we are not concerned with the said land which had been tenanted. With regard to khas land after orders were passed by the State Government, on representation having been filed by