IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that post vesting transferees have no right to undertake retention under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated December 7, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA 1315 of 2017 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order Tribunal has negated the challenge lodged by the petitioner against the order dated February 22, 2017 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 118 of 2016 which upheld the order passed by the Revenue Officer in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2015 under Section 57 B (3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the original owner of plot No. 146 measuring 0.21 acres was one Abhoy Pada Pal. Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased, had retained various plots, including Plot No. 146 by filing a Form B on August 2, 1955. He has referred to the record of rights of Abhoy Pada Pal in this regard.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, on May 13, 1961, Abhoy Pada Pal since deceased, had sold his entire 13.79 acres of land including Plot No. 146 to the Gunins. Abhoy Pada Pal had died in 1964.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, on March 27, 1985, in BR Case No. 43 of 1985 initiated under Section 6 (5) of the Act of 1953, Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased, was allowed to retain up to the ceiling limit. Such retention order had included Plot No. 146. He has contended that, on December 16, 1991, the heirs of Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased had challenged the order of vesting wherein the High Court had passed an order dated December 16, 1991. He has referred to the order of the High Court dated December 16, 1991 and contended that, the High Court directed the original Form B filed by Abhoy Pada Pal since deceased to be taken into consideration and disposed of.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, on April 22, 1992, the vesting proceedings was re-opened by the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BLLRO). The concerned BLLRO had allowed the heirs of Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased, to revise Form B which was contrary to Form B already submitted by Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased, and such an activity was contrary to the order of High Court. The concerned BLLRO had had accepted the revises fresh option where, the Plot No. 146 was not shown to be retained and was therefore allowed to be vested with the State.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had purchased the land from the Gunins in the year 2009. The petitioners had thereafter filed an appeal under Section 57 B (3) of the Act of 1953 challenging the correctness of the order of vesting. Such application had been rejected on December 5, 2014. On appeal, the appellate authority, had remanded the matter for fresh consideration by an order dated August 17, 2015 strictly in accordance with the From B filed by Abhoy Pada Pal, since deceased. He has pointed out that on remand the application of the petitioner was rejected and that such order of rejection was affirmed on appeal. The petitioners had moved the Tribunal by way of OA 1315 of 2018 in which the impugned order was passed.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 4 of the Act of 1953. He has contended that, all estates and rights of every intermediary, in such estate had vested with the State free from all encumbrances with effect from April 15, 1955 for intermediaries and with effect from April 14, 1956 for raiyats and under-raiyats. He has referred to Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1953 and contended that, an intermediary is one who is entitled to retain the land from the date of the scheme and shall be deemed to hold such land directly under the State.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that there is a distinction between vesting and retention. Vesting is universal with effect from April 15, 1955 or April 14