IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a post vesting transferee has no right to retain land under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, and the failure to file Form B for retention of land as tank fisheries precludes any right flowing to the transferee.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Writ petitioner has assailed the order dated August 30, 2004 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 197/204 (LRTT) arising out of OA 1979 of 2003 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that, the land in question stood vested with the State and that the State is free to take possession thereof in terms of Section 10 (1) read with Section 10 (3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The Tribunal has upheld the order dated March 12, 2000 passed in Case No. 7 of 2000 by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer and dismissed the Original Application of the writ petitioner.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, the writ petitioner is a cooperative society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The writ petitioner is the owner and occupier and has been in physical possession of plot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 45, 76 and 89 aggregating to an area of 79.11 acres comprised in JL No. 25 under R.S. Khatian No. 8 in Mouza Nayabad.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the land in question originally belonged to the Mondals who gave izara settlement and perpetual patta in favour of the Sarkars. He has contended that, a Partition Suit was filed under which, the Sarkars had been declared as the owners and co-sharers of the land in question. Sarkars had sold the property to Suburban Agricultural Dairy Fishery Private Limited (SADFPL) in the year 1939 by a registered deed. The writ petitioner had purchased the land in question from SADFPL in the year 1960 and has been in continuous occupation thereof, undertaking pisciculture thereat. The land in question had been mutated in its favour. The writ petitioner had paid rent to the State who accepted the same.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, under Revenue Settlement Operations, Khanda Khatians were opened separately for agricultural and non-agricultural land of SADFPL and rent were assessed under Section 4 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The writ petitioner had filed objections under Section 44 of the Act of 1953 which were disallowed. The writ petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 44 (3) of the Act of 1953 which was disposed of by an order dated June 15, 1957. He has referred to the order dated June 15, 1957 passed by the Tribunal in such proceedings and contended that, the plots in question were held to be tank fisheries.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has pointed out that by a letter dated September 21, 1991, the District Magistrate called upon SADFPL to make over possession of the land in question to the State on November 27, 1997 which SADFPL did not comply with. SADFPL had challenged such notice by filing a writ petition. The notice dated September 21, 1991 had been set aside by the High Court by an order dated September 18, 1995. No appeal had been carried against such order.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, land in question was retained by SADFPL and therefore, it did not vest with the State. SADFPL had submitted Form B return and retained the land in question. In support of such contention, he has referred to Form B filed by SADFPL in 1959.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has referred to Section 5A (3) (ii) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and contended that, SADFPL had sold the land in question to the writ petitioner from out of the portion of the retained land.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the writ petitioner applied for correction of the records of rights in the settlement records. Such representation not being considered, the writ petitioner had moved a writ petition being WP No. 15555 (W) of 1997 which was disposed of by directing the authorities to consider and dispose of such representation. By an order dated Mar