The power to revise an order under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 must be exercised within a reasonable time and before the matter or dispute between the parties had reached its finality.

The short question involved in this case is, as to what should be the time limit within which a proceeding under s. 14T(3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 can be started by the authority concerned for revising an order passed In an earlier proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the aforesaid Act.

2. In the present case, pursuant to the return under s. 7A filed by the writ petitioner wherein he opted to retain 22 15 acres of agricultural land, a proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the aforesaid Act being Case no Bishnupur/86 of 1976 was started and that was finally disposed of by the Revenue Officer concerned vide his Order no 11 dated 16th of September, 1976, holding that the raiyat namely, the petitioner, was entitled to retain 17.30 acres of agricultural lands in non-irrigated areas and the rest of his agricultural lands were to vest with the State as excess lands. Subsequently, however, in the year 1984, the said Revenue Officer issued the impugned notice (Annexure 'B') dated 24th May, 1984 supported to be one under s. 14T(3A) of the aforesaid Act, for revision of the said final order passed in the earlier proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the Act as aforesaid, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present rule.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr., Roy, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, has taken a point that the initiation of the said review and/or revisional proceeding, by issuing the impugned notice (Annexure-'B') about eight years after the final disposal of the earlier 14T(3) proceeding, was barred by limitation and as such cannot be sustained in raw. In support of his said contention, Mr. Roy, has referred to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Satish Chandra Barman vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1981) 2 CLJ 451 wherein identical questi0n arose and it was observed inter alia, by Mr. M.N Roy, J., that such power must be exercised by the authority concerned before the matter or the lis or dispute between the parties had reached its finality or would reach finality.

4. According to Mr. Roy, in the present case, the proceeding under s. 14T(3) as referred to above, in which the final order was passed by the Revenue Officer concerned on 16th November, 1976, had reached its finality after the expiry of time for preferring an appeal against such order under s. 54 read with s. 55 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, i.e., after thirty days from the date of the said final order, since no appeal was preferred against the said orders by any party namely, either by the State or by the writ petitioner.

5. Section 14T was introduced by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 with retrospective effect from 15th February, 1971 and the said Section speaks of the duty of a rayiat to furnish return, proposing to retain lands and its consequences. The relevant provisions of the said s. 14T are quoted below :–

“14T. Duty of raiyat to furnish return -- (1) Every raiyat owing land in excess of the ceiling area shall furnish to the Revenue Officer, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, a return containing the full description of the land which he proposes to retain within the ceiling area applicable to him under s. 14M and a full description of the land which is in excess of the ceiling area and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) Where there are more raiyats than one in a family, the return referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be furnished by the head of the family or any other raiyat in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section.

(3) The Revenue Officer may, on receipt of a return submitted under sub-so (1) or sub-so (2); or on his own motion, determine the extent of land which is to vest in the State under S. 14S and take possession of such lands:

Provided that where a raiyat has exercised his choice of retention of land within the ceiling area in such a way that portions of more than one plot are to vest in the State, the Revenue Officer may disregard the choice exer