JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ commanding the respondents more specifically respondent no.5 for taking immediate steps to stop illegal digging on the land belonging to the writ petitioner with a further prayer for issuance of appropriate writ upon respondents/authorities for restoration of the land belonging to the writ petitioner to its original shape along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 15 to 23 of the writ petition being a photo copy of the registered deed of gift dated 08.10.2009 whereby and whereunder the property in question being part(s) of the old Bata plot nos.1800/2160 and 1800/2208 was/were purchased by him for valuable consideration. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that after the purchase of the plots of land in the aforementioned two Bata plots which have been renumbered as LR Plot no.1978 and 1979 the name of the writ petitioner was duly recorded in the LRROR.

3. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Digha Shankarpur Development Authority and its functionary. It is submitted that from the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos.4 and 5 it would reveal that it is the admitted position that original CS Plot no.1800 in Mauja Khadal-Gobra was sub-divided into three plots being RS plot no.1800(original), RS Plot no.1800/2160 (Bata) and RS Plot no.1800/2208 (Bata). Drawing attention to page no.11 of the aforementioned affidavit-in-opposition it is contended by Mr. Chatterjee that in a proceeding under Section 51(A) of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act of 1955’ in short) the respondent nos. 4 and 5 raised an objection to the effect that the aforementioned three Bata plots have already been recorded in the names of the respondent no.4/authority by virtue of a land acquisition proceeding and therefore the record of rights in respect of the two Bata plots namely; 1800/2160 and 1800/2208 be rectified and recorded in the name of the respondent no.4/authority instead of one Anjali Khan. Drawing attention to page no. 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in a proceeding under Section 41A of the said Act of 1955 the Revenue Officer accepted the objection raised by the respondent no.4 and came to a finding that the name of the said Anjali Khan was wrongly recorded in the aforementioned two Bata plots namely; 1800/2160 and 1800/2208 and directed for correction of record of rights in the name of respondent no.4/authority in respect of the aforesaid two Bata plots.

4. Drawing further attention to page no.14 of the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that challenging the said order of Revenue Officer dated 06.09.1994 an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955 and by an order dated 10.01.2008 the appellate authority set aside the order of the Revenue Officer as passed on 06.09.1994. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in the said appeal the appellate authority came to a specific finding that the aforementioned two plots have not been acquired in connection with the LA case no.16/55-56 though the said two Bata plots were involved in the aforementioned LA case. It is further contended by Mr. Chatterjee that the appellate authority by its order dated 10.01.2008 submitted that since the said two Bata plots have never been acquired the direction passed by the Revenue Officer under cover of its order dated 06.09.1994 for correction of the reco