The provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act were extended to the transferred territories by virtue of the West Bengal Transferred Territories (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1958, and the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956, and no further notification was required. Physical possession of the surplus land is not a condition precedent to the vesting of the land in the State, and the inaction of the Collector in not taking possession of the land does not affect the vesting of title in the State.

( 1 ) THE issue involved in the appeal is whether there can be any proceeding under Chapter II B of West Bengal Land Reforms Act in the absence of any notification under West Bengal Land Reforms Act extending the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the transferred territories. It is also in issue as to whether any surplus land is liable to be vested without acquiring physical possession theereof by the State.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING the initiation of a proceeding under Section 14 T of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1995 in respect of lands held by the raiyat namely Ram Mohan Das of Karandighi, West Dinajpur, the concerned raiyat raised an objection with regard to the purported vesting of alleged surplus land. It was registered as objection case No. 89 of 1976. On examination of all the relevant documents and the evidence, it was held that Ram Mohan das arid his family were entitled to retain 17. 30 acres of non-irrigated agricultural land. 9. 33 acres of non-irrigated agricultural land was directed to be vested in the Stale with effect from 15/02/1975. It was contended by the legal heirs of Ram Mohan Das that the statement contained in the return in Form No. 7 submitted by Mr. Ram Mohan Das did not reveal the actual state of affairs. It was contended that the Mitakshara co-operational family dissolved long way back, with the sons acquiring separate share and interest in respect of their separate lands. Accepting the proposition that the family and the erstwhile raiyat consisted of only three members, It was held by the revenue official that the family was entitled to retain 17. 40 acres of non-irrigated land. Direction was given to the family to surrender 9. 33 acres of agricultural land.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING that finding, the appellants filed a writ petition which was registered as C. R. No. 11922 (W) of 1981. On consideration of the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid writ application. Challenging that finding of the learned Single Judge, the appeal being F. M. A. 105 of 2004 has been filed.

( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the appellants, Mr. N. K. Manna, learned senior Counsel, has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that since no notification under the West Bengal Land reforms Act, 1955 had been issued, extending chapter-ll B of the State of west Bengal Land Reforms Act as introduced by the West Bengal Land reforms (Amended) Act, 1972 to the transferred territories i. e. the territories transferred from State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal including some portions in the district of Purnia, the impugned proceeding under Section 14 T ought to have been quashed. It is contended that in Jasoda Devi v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , the learned Single Judge in disposing of Civil rule No. 2001 (W) of 1985 took the view that in the absence of any notification under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1995, extending the provisions of the Act to the transferred territories which incidentally were the territories transferred from State of Bihar including Purnia to State of West Bengal, the proceeding under Chapter-ll B was liable to be quashed. Similar view, it is contended, was taken in Prem Kumara Muskara v. State of West Bengal in Civil Rule No. 3465 (W) of 1984, whereby it was held that since there was no notification in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, extending chapter-ll B of the same as introduced by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 to the transferred territory, the proceeding under section 14 T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was liable to be quashed. The notification not having been issued, the proceeding against the erstwhile raiyat is not sustainable in laaw, as contended by Mr. Manna.

( 5 ) REFERRING to West Bengal Transferred Territories (Assimilation of laws) Act, 1958, it is submitted that in sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the said Act, it has been provide