The requirement of notification under Section 1(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act does not apply to provisions inserted by amendment long after Section 1 was enforced, as they cannot be treated as 'remaining provisions' mentioned in Section 1(3).

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the order dated January 8, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and tenancy Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the present writ petitioners against an appellate order. The said appellate order was passed against the order of the Revenue Officer determining that the Raiyat Sm. Kalyani Pandey and the members of her family being the present applicants held 35. 16 acres of land and since Raiyat had a four members family, she was entitled to a ceiling area of 17. 30 acres and order of vesting was passed in respect of the balance land subject to result of the Special leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court on the question of vires of the amendments of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, 1956 made in 1981 and 1986.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Saktinath Mukherji, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal learned Counsel for the respondents. As the decision in the present writ petition may have serious consequence if the contention of the petitioners is accepted, and the question raised by the petitioners required further consideration the matter was again fixed for 'further Hearing' upon notice to the learned Advocate General and both sides were heard.

( 3 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Mukherji is that West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Principal Act) was enacted indicating in Section 1 (3) of the said Act that the said Section 1 was to come into effect immediately and "remaining provisions" of the Act were to come into force upon publication of notification in official gazette. By various notifications various provisions of the said Act were enforced. But when the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 was passed, section 1 (2) of the said Amending Act provided for similar provisions for its enforcement mentioning that the provisions of the said Act was to come into force on such date as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act and any reference to the commencement of any provisions of the Act shall be construed as referring the date on which that provision comes into force. By a subsequent amendment being the West bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 various provisions of the principal Act were omitted, and some provisions were substituted or inserted. Chapter-IIB was inserted in the Principal Act by Section 13 of the amending Act of 1972. This Amending Act was enforced as mentioned in section 1 (2) of the said Amending Act of 1972 which shows that Section 13 thereof was deemed to have come into force on the 15th of February, 1971. The said 15th February, 1971 was the date prescribed by the notification dated 13th February, 1971 as appointed date for enforcement of Section 13 of the Amending Act of 1971 inserting Chapter-IIB.

( 4 ) MR. Mukherji, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the said Principal Act is a conditional legislation by reason of provisions of section 1 (3) thereof. Such legislation though is valid in the eye of law but is not enforced until the prescribed condition is satisfied which in this case is publication of notification in official gazette. Therefore, when Section 13 of the amending Act was enforced from 15th of February, 1971, said chapter-IIB was inserted in the Principal Act but same was not enforceable until a notification is issued under Section 1 (3) of the Principal Act because the Principal Act is a conditional legislation. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that as the said notification has never been published, the said Chapter II-B is not in force and the proceedings cannot be taken up under the said chapter until such a notification is published in official gazette and makes the provisions of Chapter II-B so inserted enforceable.

( 5 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Mondal, learned Counsel who initially argued, for the respondents wa