The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, regarding the retention of land and mutation of names in the Record-of-Rights.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

This first writ application amongst the aforesaid two writ applications bearing W.P.L.R.T. No.51 of 2006 is directed against an order dated August 11, 2005 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in the original application bearing O.A. No.2446 of 2004. The subject matter of challenge in the above original application was inaction on the part of the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officers, Howrah in the matter of allowing mutation in the L.R. Record-of-Right in favour of the petitioner/company in respect of the property in question on the basis of its application dated September 4, 2003. The above application was dismissed by virtue of the impugned judgment.

2. The writ application bearing W.P.L.R.T. No.706 of 2007 is directed against an order dated May 18, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in the original application bearing O.A. No.212 of 2006 (LRTT). The subject matter of challenge in the above original application was a notice dated September 27, 2005 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, L.R. Branch seeking to resume 20.02 acres of land comprised in the factory lying and situated at Mouza-Sahanpur, J.L. No.02, Police Station-Jagacha, District-Howrah, seeking to resume the land as surplus to the requirement of the Company as also asking the petitioners to file written objection. The above original application was also dismissed.

3. Considering the subject matters involved and also the prayers made on behalf of the parties to these proceedings, both the writ applications have been taken up for analogous hearing.

4. The facts which were considered to be relevant by the learned Tribunal where as under in a nutshell:-

5. The India Machinery Company Limited was the owner of the buildings, shades and structures and vacant land appertaining thereto spread over several holdings lying and situated at the land in question. The above company was in possession of the land in question at the point of time when Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1953) came into force. The land held by the company was allowed to be retained without initiation of any proceeding under Section 6 of the said Act, 1953.

6. By reason of a proceeding initiated by the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as I.R.B.I.) under Section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.B.I. Act, 1954) before the High Court at Calcutta for realization of its dues against the aforesaid company, the properties and assets belonging to the above company including the vacant land appertaining thereto held by the company was sold in favour of the petitioners by virtue of a court sale in terms of orders dated August 13, 2001 and October 4, 2002.

7. The petitioners applied to the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Howrah for mutating and recording the names of the petitioners in the Record-of-Rights by virtue of applications dated September 4, 2003 and August 23, 2004. The original application bearing O.A. No.2446 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal alleging inaction on the part of the above respondent authority in disposing of the above applications. The above original application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on August 11, 2005.

8. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, L.R. Branch issued a notice dated September 27, 2005 to M/s. India Machinery Company Limited, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, seeking resumption of 20.02 acres of land as being surplus to requirement of the above company for its purpose for which it was allowed to retain. The above notice was under challenge before the learned Tribunal in original application bearing O.A. No.212 of