JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. An order dated March 12, 2021 passed in O.A. No. 1477 of 2008 by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the father of the writ petitioners executed a deed of settlement on December 30, 1965. At that material point of time, Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was not in the statute book. Consequently, the Revenue Officer could not open the issue as to whether, the deed of settlement dated December 30, 1965 was benami or not purporting to act under Section 14T(5) of the Act of 1955. According to him, the time period under the Act of 1955, to look into an issue of benami is prescribed under Section 14P of the Act of 1955. The deed of settlement was executed prior to the date prescribed under Section 14P of the Act of 1955. The Revenue Officer was without jurisdiction in purporting to open an issue of benami in respect of a deed of settlement falling outside the purview of Section 14P.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the issue of irrigated and non-irrigated area, is also beyond the competence of the Revenue Officer in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners relies upon the Braja Mohan Choudhury vs. Revenue Officer & Ors. (1979) 1 CHN 401 in support of the contention submits that, the time period specified under Section 14P of the Act of 1955 is specific and cannot be enlarged.

5. Relying upon Sasanka Sekhar Maity & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 716 learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, time limit prescribed under the Act of 1955 are valid.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State draws attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 14T (5), (8) and (9) of the Act of 1955. He contends that, by virtue of Sub-Section (8) of Section 14T of the Act of 1955, the provisions of Sub-Section (5), (6) and (7) of Section 14T of the Act of 1955 is with retrospective effect from May 5, 1953. Therefore, according to him, the Revenue Officer was correct in invoking Section 14T(5) of the Act of 1955 in determining whether deed of settlement in question was a benami or not.

7. The materials made available on record establishes that the Revenue Officer, invoked Section 14T(5) of the Act of 1955 in order to determine whether a deed of settlement executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in favour of the writ petitioners on December 30, 1962 was a benami transaction or not. Revenue Officer took evidence with regard thereto. Revenue Officer considered the composition of the family of the settlor at the time of the execution of the deed of settlement. The Revenue Officer found that there was only one adult in the family of the settlor at the material point of time. Revenue Officer from the evidence of witnesses recorded found that, the immovable property was cultivated by the settlor for the benefit of all the family members even subsequent to the execution of the deed of settlement. The Revenue Officer, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that, the deed of settlement dated December 30, 1965 was a benami and was executed in order to overcome the restrictions of ceiling and holding prescribed by the Act of 1955. An appeal was carried from the order of the Revenue Officer to the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer. The appellate authority returned a concurrent finding as that of the Revenue O