JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Writ petitioner has assailed an order dated May 06, 2005 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 2136 of 2003 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal. 

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the writ petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Writ petitioner no. 1 had owned 51.21 acres of immovable property.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has pointed out that, a notice dated September 13, 1995 was purported to be issued under Section 57 read with Sections 14T (3), 14L, 14P, 14U of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Rule 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules. He has pointed out to the body of such notice and contended that, the authorities claimed that no return was filed by the writ petitioners in terms of Section 14T (10) of the Act of 1955 and that, the writ petitioners allegedly held land above the ceiling provision permitted as per the Section 14M of the Act of 1955.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the issue of vesting of land held by the writ petitioners stood decided by reason of a decree passed in civil suit. He has referred to the decree dated April 7, 1984 passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1979 by the learned Munsif at Siligri. He has pointed out that State of West Bengal was one of the defendants in such suit where, the learned Court was pleased to decree such suit and declare the title of the writ petitioner No. 1 to the suit land as also restrain the defendants in the suit, namely, the State of West Bengal by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land of the writ petitioner No. 1.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has relied upon an order dated October 4, 1991 and submitted that, proceedings under the Act of 1955 were undertaken and that, by an order dated October 29, 1991, the authorities had found that the total number of the shareholdres of the writ petitioner No. 1 being 29 and the land held by the writ petitioner No. 1 to be 46.86 acres which is far below the individual ceiling limits, the case was dropped. He has submitted that, once such finding was returned on October 29, 1991 by the authorities, the same issue could not be reopened.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has pointed out that proceedings under Section14T (5) of the Act of 1955 was undertaken in respect of Big Raiyot Case No. 67 of 1957 which had culminated into the order dated October 29, 1991 by closing such proceedings. He has contended that, subsequent to such decision rendered in the proceedings under Section 14T (5) of the Act of 1955 no further proceedings can be taken for the purposed of vesting.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has referred to Section 14Q of the Act of 1955 and contended that, 14Q(1) and 14Q(2) were available at the time when the proceedings under Section 14T (3) of the Act of 1955 were sought to be undertaken. On such date, the writ petitioner No. 1 by virtue of the number of its members it had, was entitled to hold land as decided in the proceedings under Section 14T (5) of the Act of 1955.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the writ petitioner No. 1 had filed a writ petition in which an interim order dated October 18, 1995 was passed. Such order had directed the respondent authorities not to proceed and take any steps pursuant to the Memo dated September 13, 1995 till disposal of the rule. He has pointed out that, such writ petition being CO No. 19024 (w) of 1995 was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and was renumbered as TA 745 of 2000.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner