The SDL & LRO retains jurisdiction under specific sections to adjudicate land retention, while previous unchallenged orders attain finality, limiting reopening unless jurisdictional flaws are proven.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition is a composite challenge to two orders of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

2. By the first, it was held by the learned Tribunal that upon the considerations as reflected in the said judgment, it is axiomatic that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Namkhana, by adopting sophistry, deliberately violated the order of the Tribunal time and again and for insubordination to the SDL & LRO, Kakdwip, the said BL & LRO, Namkhana, is liable to be condemned.

3. Furthermore, the BL & LRO was directed to correct the LR Records of Rights with respect to the subject property and to record the names of the applicants (the present private respondents) accordingly within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order without fail. The DL & LRO, South 24 Parganas, being the Appropriate Authority, was directed to ensure that the order is duly complied with by the BL & LRO, Namkhana, within the period specified above.

4. By the second impugned order, a review application filed by the State in respect of the first impugned order was rejected and a contempt petition filed by the present private respondents was allowed on contest, thereby directing that the BL & LRO, Namkhana, being the contemnor, to correct the record of rights in favour of the applicants with respect to the subject property within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the order. The State was directed to ensure retention of the BL & LRO, Namkhana in post until full compliance was achieved.

5. Learned Senior Government Advocate argues that the private respondents are post-vesting transferees and, as such have not acquired any title in the subject plots of land.

6. It is contended that in due process of law within the contemplation of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (in short “the 1953 Act”), an exercise was undertaken in respect of vesting of the subject plot of land. Although the original intermediary, namely, Sri Gopal Chandra Hait had apparently filed a Form-B for retention of certain lands, it was ultimately discovered that such Form- B was filed by the heirs of said Gopal Chandra Hait, that too without any signature.

7. In such view of the matter, no proper Form-B having been filed for retention, the subject land stood vested in the State.

8. Learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that the portion of the other land of the said intermediary, which came within the ceiling limit, was permitted to be retained.

9. However, despite such exercise having been concluded, the private respondents/post-vesting purchasers sought to reopen the issue by relying on a purchase deed executed in favour of their predecessor-in- interest allegedly by the intermediary Gopal Chandra Hait. It is argued that on the premise of the same, the post- vesting purchasers sought to mutate their names in the Records of Rights.

10. Upon there being alleged inaction on the part of the BL & LRO, the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was moved, on which the Tribunal directed the BL & LRO to consider the representation of the private respondents in accordance with law.

11. After several rounds of litigation, the Tribunal lastly granted liberty to the private respondents to have a reference before the concerned Revenue Officer (SDL & LRO) under Section 57B(3) of the 1953 Act.

12. However, the SD & LRO, going beyond his jurisdiction, reopened the vesting/retention process under Section 6 of the 1953 Act and came to the conclusion that Gopal Chandra Hait, t