JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Writ petitioners have assailed the order dated March 13, 2024 corrected on March 20, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 3775 of 2022. By the impugned order learned Tribunal has dismissed OA No. 3775 of 2002 filed by the writ petitioners.

2. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, in 1946, government of West  Bengal acquired 531 acres of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Possession of such land had been made over to the writ petitioners in 1947. By an indenture dated October 1, 1948, State had conveyed 530 acres of land to the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, State had acquired for the land of 190 acres under the Act of 1894 and possession made over to the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner No. 1. A similar agreement under Section 41 of the Act of 1894 had been executed.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the subject land having been acquired by the State under the Act of 1894, and the same having vested in the State prior to the commencement of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, a land which is already vested with the State cannot be revested in the State under the Act of 1953.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has referred to Section 3 of the Act of 1953 and more particularly to the 2^nd proviso thereof and contended that, the same expressly excludes from the purview of the Act of 1953, land acquired by the State including land in respect of which acquisition proceeding had commenced. He has relied upon 1987 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 465 (Union of India vs. Nihar Kanta Sen and Others.) 2002 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 682 (Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja vs. State of West Bengal) in support of the contention that, land vested with the State cannot be revested under the provisions of the Act of 1953.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, the purported resumption proceedings are contrary to the ratio of 2009 volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 454 (State of West Bengal and others versus Ratnagiri Engineering Private Ltd and Others). He has contended that, proviso to Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953 has been interpreted to mean that, the same can be invoked only if, some fraud or misrepresentation was made to the State for obtaining the order under Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953 or there was a genuine and important mistake made by the State in passing the order under section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953. He has contended that, the power under the proviso to Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953 cannot be exercised on the ground that after the order of the State government passed under Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953, some subsequent developments have taken place. He has contended that, the impugned order of resumption has proceeded on the basis of subsequent events and therefore, contrary to the ratio of Ratnagiri Engineering (supra).

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that, Explanation II introduced to the proviso to Section 6 (3) of the Act of 1953 is bad in law. He has pointed out that, vires such provisions were challenged before the learned Tribunal. He has contended that, legislature cannot introduce a legislation to render ineffective a judgement of a court of law through an addition of an explanation. He has also contended that, explanation introduced to the statute, cannot amend the provisions therein. According to him, Explanation II introduced has encroached on the judicial power of the court. He has relied upon 1985 volume 1 Supreme Court cases 591 (S. Sundaram Pillai and Others vs. V. R. Pattabiraman and Others), All India Reporter 1961 Supreme Court 315 (Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. and Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer and Others), and 2023 SCC onl