The non-agricultural tenant is exempted from the vesting provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, confirmed by the retrospective effect of Section 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The instant writ petition raises an important and seminal point relating to the status of the writ petitioner in relation to a factory land where the mutation in the Record of Right was denied taking shelter under the various provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

2. The facts are more or less undisputed. One Bissesswar Dutta was the owner of a plot of land measuring 22 Bighas of garden land with a structure and duly mutated his name in the Record of Right. Upon the death of the said owner his widow and the son transferred and conveyed the said land in favour of one Indian Malleable Castings Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the Record of Right was corrected and the land comprised under the said deed of sale was referred as Karkhana instead of Bagan. Thereafter, a winding-up petition was filed against the said Indian Malleable Castings Pvt. Ltd. being CP No. 72 of 1975 and an order was passed by the Company Court for sale of the assets of the said company. The writ petitioner purchased the land from the Court sale and subsequently applied for mutation of their names in the Record of Rights. Since the authorities refused to record the name taking shelter under the various provisions of the aforesaid Act, the Tribunal was approached and the Tribunal Application was ultimately dismissed. The instant writ petition is filed assailing the order of the Tribunal.

3. The respondent/State filed a written note of arguments supporting the judgment of the Tribunal citing various provisions of the Act which shall be dealt with hereinafter. However, Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner raises an important issue in relation to Section 4 , Section 5 and Section 6 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and contends that the harmonious reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no ambiguity that the non-agricultural tenant was kept outside the purview of the vesting provisions. According to him, the definition of a intermediary under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1953 is explicit and categorical that it would mean a proprietor, tenure holder or any other intermediary above a Rayat or a non-agricultural tenant and, therefore, by virtue of Section 4 of the said Act, the right of intermediary had vested with the State. It is further submitted that the definition of a intermediary is exposite that nonagricultural tenant were kept outside the purview of the vesting provision of the said Act which would further be evident from Section 6 (1) (g) thereof. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Act confers right upon the intermediary to retain certain categories of the land w.e.f. the date of the vesting and in relation to a land comprised only mills, factories or workshop, such retention is subject to the provision of Sub-Section (3) thereof. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 is again applicable in case of a land comprised in tea garden, mill, factory and workshop in relation to an intermediary or where the land is held under lease to be entitled to retain only so much of such land as in the opinion of the State Government is required for such purposes and a person holding under a lease for the purpose of assessment of compensation is deemed to have intermediary. Mr. Mukherjee further takes us to Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the said Act wherein the right to retain the land under Sub-Section (1) of the said Section is provided and in the event no choice is exercised, the Revenue Officer of its own after giving an opportunity of being heard shall permit the retent