The power of review under section 14T(3a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is not subject to an express limitation, but it is to be exercised within a reasonable time and before finality is reached in the matter.

In this Rule, which was issued with the corresponding interim order for maintenance of status quo as on that date, was obtained on 29th August, 1977, against an order dated 11th April, 1977, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Coach Behar, in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1966-67. By such determination, an order dated 14th September, 1976 and one dated 5th November, 1976 in Review Case No.4 of 1976 under section 14T(3a) read with 14T(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and Rule 14C of the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the said Rule) and as passed by the initial authority, was affirmed. The other particulars of the orders would appear from the recordings as made hereafter.

2. The petitioner claimed to have owned and possessed 24.22 acres of agricultural land apart from 0.76 acres of non-agricultural lands (these lands will hereafter be referred to as the said lands) and has also claimed to have filed a return in Form 7 A under the said Act on or about 25th April, 1972, for retention of the said lands. It was also claimed that thereafter, on the basis of such return, a proceeding, bearing No. 169 of 1972-73 was initiated and therein, he contended that his family consisted of nine members, viz. he himself, his wife, his mother, his two sons by the first wife, one unmarried daughter, a daughter-in-law, one grand son and a grand-daughter.

3. It has been stated that, considering the number of the members of the family, by an order dated 5th March, 1976, the petitioner was allowed to retain 22.48 acres of lands and as such, an order was made for the vesting of 2.50 acres. Thereafter, such determination was reopened by the Assistant Settlement Officer concerned, by Case No. 169 of 1972-73, with the object and purpose of reviewing the case and as such Review Case No. 4 of 1976, was initiated and notice under section 57 read with section 14T(1) of the said Act, coupled with Rule 14C of the said Rules, was served, informing him to appear on 10th September, 1976. It was the case of the petitioner that he duly appeared on the date as stipulated and then he was informed by the officer concerned that the order passed in Case No. 169 of 1972-73, under section 14T of the said Act, whereby he was allowed to retain the lands as mentioned above, contravened the provisions of section 14K(c) of the said Act, as the family, as defined thereunder, would not include daughter-in-law and grand-son. The petitioner also stated that he was informed that under section 14M of the said Act, he was entitled to retain 7.30 acres of agricultural lands as his family was composed of five members only. It has been stated that then by order dated 14th September, 1976, the officer concerned, directed that 5.18 acres of agricultural lards, out of 22.48 acres, as was allowed to be retained, to be vested in the State and thereafter, by an order dated 5th November, 1976, the particulars of those lands as vested, were given or made known.

4. It was the case of the petitioner that such reopening by way of review, was purported to have been done by the officer concerned, in terms of section 14T(3A) of the said Act, which sub-section was inserted by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act XII of 1976). The petitioner claimed that the said sub-section, has not prescribed any time limit for exercise of the power of review suo motu or for preferring an application for the review and that apart, no Rule has also been framed, prescribing any limitation for initiation of such proceedings suo motu or otherwise and as such, the said sub-section was bad for excessive and unbridled delegation of power to the Executive Authorities and as such was violative of Article 154 and other provisions of the Constitution of India. Since the said Amending Act XII of 1976 bas been placed in Schedule IX, Mr. Matilal, in his usual fairness and following the determinations in the case of (1) Sasanka Sekhar