A post-vesting transferee from an intermediary is not entitled to be heard in a B.R. proceeding under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act because their interest in the land did not vest until after the date of vesting and they had no subsisting transferable title.

Mookerjee, J. :

Appellants have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against summary rejection of their writ petition by the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukerji, J. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioners were guilty of inordinate delay. Therefore their writ petition was not entertainable.

2. We have heard Miss Chaturvedi for the appellant and Mr. Sircar for the respondents. We are not inclined to interfere with the order appealed against. We, however, make it clear that the reasons for our decision are somewhat different from those given by the learned Single Judge for rejecting in limine the writ petition. It is undisputed that on February 17, 1964 the State Government issued a Notification for bringing into force the provisions of Chapter VIII of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act relating to the transfer of territories with effect from March 1, 1964. Thereafter, a fresh Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was made in respect of the District of Purulia and with effect from April, 14, 1964 the interests of intermediaries including raiyats and under-raiyats vested in the State free from encumbrances. According to the determination made in a proceeding under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the respondent No.5, Sri Jagadish Tewari, was an intermediary, possessing khas lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed by clause (d) of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Therefore, in terms of Section 4 read with Section 5 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the right, title and interest of the said respondent No.5 had vested in the State free from encumbrances and subject to his right to retain in terms of Section 6 read with the relevant Rules of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules. The said intermediary was required to submit a return in Form B exercising his option to retain. In the instant case, before exercising his said option, on September 16, 1964, Jagdish Tewari had purported to transfer 12.43 acres of land by a registered Deed in favour of the present appellants. According to the appellants, their names were recorded in respect of these lands in the finally published Revisional Records of Rights and the local Junior Land Reforms Officer had mutated their names in the rent roll. But in the Big Raiyat Case No. 296 of 1977 under Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act started against Jagdish Tewari, respondent No.5, the present appellants were not joined as parties. They were not given any hearing. Jagdish, Tewari in his return in Form B did not include the lands transferred to the appellants by the registered Deed dated September 16, 1964, Thus, he did not exercise his option to retain these lands. Total area of non-agricultural and agricultural lands retained by the respondent No.5 was much below the ceiling prescribed by clauses (c) and (d) of Section 6(1) of the Act.

3. Subsequently, there was a proceeding under Section 10(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act for taking possession of the vested lands previously belonging to the respondent No.5. No notice of the said proceeding was allegedly served upon the appellants.

4. In our view, the appellants cannot make grievance that they were not given any hearing in the aforesaid B.R. Case under Section 6(1) of the Act started against the respondent No.5, Jagdish Tewari. We have already pointed out that Jagdish Tewari's interest in all his lands including those purported to have been transferred to the appellants vested on and from April 14, 1964. Until Jagdish Tewari, the respondent No.5, by submission of appropriate returns, retained his khas lands in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act, he had no subsisting transferable title which he could validly convey to the appellants. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice is of no relevance. After the date of vesting transfer by an intermediary of a vested