JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. State of West Bengal has applied for review of the order dated September 13, 2023 passed in WPLRT 124 of 2022.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that by virtue of a notification issued subha karmakar subha karmakar Date: 2025.06.25 under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, all estates and rights of the intermediaries in Purulia District stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances on April 14, 1964.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that, land belonging to the then intermediary namely Srilal Marwari vested in the State by operation of law. He has pointed out that, Srilal Marwari did not furnish choice of retention in Form-B within the stipulated date on July 31, 1964. Therefore, in 1971, suo moto proceeding had been initiated providing the intermediary to exercise its choice of retention under Section 6(5) of the Act of 1953. Son of Srilal Marwari namely Gokul Prasad Marwari had appeared in the hearing and submitted that Form-B on behalf of the Srilal Marwari. From the land schedule attached to such proceedings, it transpires that 16.63 acres of agricultural land apart from homestead land had been allowed to be retained and 25.58 acres of agricultural land and some non-agricultural land had stood vested in the State on December 16, 1964. After such vesting proceeding was completed on December 16, 1974, heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat had belatedly approached to the authorities in 1991 for reviewing of the case and by giving them an opportunity to submit a fresh Form-B.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State has contended that the prayer for reviewing the vesting proceedings and permission to submit a fresh Form-B was unreasonable. It had, however, generated memo dated September 6, 1996 by which, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer directed the Block and Land Reforms Officer to extend the relief to the writ petitioner by reviewing the BR Case. He has contended that, such correspondence was not in consonance with statutory provision and without any authenticity of law and, therefore, is not binding. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2010 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr.)

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, there is no provision for review under the Act of 1953. The vesting proceedings had initiated and culminated under the Act of 1953. In support of such contention, he has relied upon an order dated February 9, 1989 passed in Civil Rule no. 5935 (w) of 1979 (Sri Pashupati Gole & Ors. vs. the Revenue Officer, Settlement “B” Camp, Tamluk & Ors.). He has also relied upon an order dated February 11, 2020 passed in WPLRT 203 of 2011 (Rabindra Nath Samanta & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) for the proposition that, the Act of 1953 disentitles the intermediary a further chance to submit Form- B. He has also relied upon 1993 Supp 4 Supreme Court Cases 674 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) in this regard.

6. Relying upon 2010 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 437 (Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, review of BR Case not permissible in the facts of the present case.

7. Relying upon 2023 volume 10 Supreme Court cases 807 (Mahadeo and others versus Sovan Devi and another) learned Senior Advocate for the review applicant has submitted that, the direction of the District Land and Land ReForms Officer (DL & LRO) does not confer any right on the writ petitioner.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, there is no provision barring alteration of Form-B or filing a fresh Form-B. He has relied upon 88 CWN 485 (Krittibus Bhattacharya vs. State of West Benga