IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in determining the rights and ownership of lands previously held by a company that went into liquidation.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The Writ Petition is in assailment of an order dated January 19, 2023 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 573 of 2020 (LRTT). By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Srirampur, to dispose of the representation filed by the writ petitioners on June 17, 2019 within six months.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell is that the lands involved herein measuring 28.66 acres, appertaining to Mouza – Konnagar, J.L. NO. 007 situated within Uttarpara Police Station, Hooghly, previously belonged to M/s Durga Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited which comprised of factory, sheds, buildings, staff quarters and other structures.

3. The aforesaid company M/s Durga Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited went into liquidation under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. In the winding up proceeding the assets of the company including the aforesaid lands were sold in auction. The writ petitioner company purchased the aforesaid lands by dint of a registered deed of indenture dated June 07, 2007, executed by the Official Liquidator in terms of a direction in this regard by the Hon’ble High Court.

4. During the pendency of the liquidation proceeding, on March 1, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer (SDL & LRO), Srirampur issued a notice under Section 6(3) read with Section 57 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, directing the writ petitioner to appear before the authorities with a map of the Mill/Factory showing the up-to-date position, schedule of the land and other documentary evidence. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated September 15, 2008 recording that the issue raised by the petitioner would be guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited and Central Glass Industries, then pending. However, the SDL & LRO, Srirampur, was directed not to take any steps in terms of the notice dated March 1, 2006.

5. It was further case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities were not justified in issuing the notice dated March 1, 2006 as the petitioner company was not an intermediary in respect of the lands involved in the proceeding and therefore, the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 was not applicable to such lands. In fact, the authorities were not sure as to deal with the said lands in terms of the Act of 1953 or in accordance with West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The entries in the record of rights were made by the authorities without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing.

6. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 was ever issued and no order of retention was made in respect of the land in question. The respondents altered the entries in the Record of Rights quite arbitrarily and in complete violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice. The aforesaid lands fell within the ceiling limit of the petitioner and as such, the authorities had no reason to invoke the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1953.

7. The petitioner also made out a case that there was no order for retention of the subject lands at the initial stage, there can be no revision of something which does not exist. In support of such proposition, the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 453 (State of West Bengal Vs Ratnagiri Emgineering Private Limited & anr.)

8. Relying upon AIR 1967 SC 940 (Shibkumar Nandy Vs Prabartak Sangha & Others) and (2018) SCC OnLine Cal 16852 (Adyama Complx Privated Limited & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), it was contended that the disputed lands contained structures and buildings and therefore, it was not liable to be dea