A statutory authority cannot terminate or interfere with a legal right conferred by a statute except under the provisions of law or in accordance with the provisions of the statute concerned.

M.M. Dutt J : This Rule has been issued by this Court as the writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by B.C. Ray J. The petitioner, Singell Tea & Agricultural Industries Ltd. which was the owner of a tea garden known as Singell Tea Estate situate at Kurseong, in the district of Darjeeling has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to and to cancel and withdraw the impugned order contained in the Memo No. 77(15)13/TC/TN dated April 16, 1981. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned memo. There is also a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to deliver possession of the tea garden to the petitioner if the respondents had, after the affirmation of the writ petition, taken over possession of the garden pursuant to the impugned order.

2. After the enactment of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the petitioner retained and/or was allowed to retain so much of the land comprised in the tea garden as was in the opinion of the State Government required fur the tea garden under sub-s (3) of S. 6 of the Act. Section 42(2) of the Act provides for determination of rent payable by the intermediary retaining possession of a tea garden as a tenant under the State. It appears that in the instant case there was such a determination of rent under S. 42(2) by the Revenue Officer, but there is nothing on record to show the date of such determination. The rent that was determined was Rs. 2,375.94 per year and was entered in the finally published record of rights. It further appears that the Government was not satisfied with the quantum of rent determined by the Revenue Officer. A proceeding under S. 44(2a) of the Act for the revision of the entries in the record of rights in respect of the tea garden was started by the Revenue Officer. In that proceeding, the Revenue Officer by his order dated August 22, 1968 again determined the rent payable by, the petitioner to the Stale Government. This time, the rent that was determined was Rs. 8.769.24 pa year. The previous determination of rent was directed by the Revenue Officer to be replaced by the said subsequent determination and the entry in that regard in the record of rights was revised.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said determination of rent under S. 44(2) in a proceeding under S. 44(2a) of the Act preferred two appeals to the Tribunal under sub s. (3) of S.44 of the Act. Both the appeals were dismissed for default by the learned District Judge, Darjeeling, who was the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The petitioner filed two applications for restoration of the appeals under Order 41, rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but both the applications were dismissed by the learned District Judge, by his orders dated August 16, 1975. Against the said orders of the learned District Judge, the petitioner moved two applications under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Upon the said applications, two rules being Civil Rule No. 3741 of 1975 and Civil Rule No, 3742 of 1975 were issued on October 1, 1975 by a Division Bench of this Court. The Court also granted an interim stay of the operation of the order dated August 22, 1963 of the Revenue Officer fixing the rent payable by the petitioner in respect of the tea garden by it at Rs. 8,76924.

4. While the said two rules were pending in this Court, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling by his letter dated June 20, 1979 addressed to the Manager of Singell Tea Estate stated, inter alia, that in Spik of repeated reminders, the petitioner had not executed the long term Jesse for 30 years on pre-payment of the requisite number of instalments of rent and cesses. It was directed that if the petitioner would fail to tender payment of Government dues, the following consequences would fo