JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, thereby affirming an order passed by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DL & LRO), Hooghly in LR Appeal No. 89 of 2002 under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”), upholding the order dated June 14, 2002 passed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Dhaniakhali, Hooghly, in Case No. 10/DNK/14T(5)/02.

2. Initially, the present writ petitioners had preferred a challenge against a proceeding initiated under Section 14T(3) of the 1955 Act on the ground that while calculating the ceiling limits, the provisions of Section 14M were not considered and lands which had already been transferred by the grand-mother of the writ petitioners, namely, Nirmala Bala Dassi, in favour of her two grandsons and one daughter-in-law had also been included within the land held by the raiyat.

3. The same culminated in a proceeding before the learned Tribunal, giving rise to Case No. TA 812/2000 (LRTT) in CR No. 10795(w) of 1983, having initially been filed by way of a writ petition before this Court and subsequently transferred to the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal, vide order dated July 10, 2001, quashed the proceeding and directed the BL & LRO, Dhaniakhali, Hooghly, to proceed afresh under the amended provisions of the 1955 Act to determine the ceiling area of the raiyat / raiyats as expeditiously as possible.

5. Thereafter, by a notice dated May 15, 2002, issued purportedly under Sections 14T(5), read with Sections 14T(8) and 14T(9), of the 1955 Act to the writ petitioners.

6. A written objection was filed by the writ petitioners in respect of the said notice, wherein it was pointed out that the size of the family of late Nirmala Bala Dassi as on February 15, 1971 was a single unit family and therefore she was entitled to retain 2.50 standard hectares (equivalent to 6.178 acres) of land in irrigated area. It was further pleaded that Nirmala Bala Dassi, since deceased, was a raiyat and she owned 11.52 acres of land, out of which she transferred 6.74 acres of lands by three registered deeds of gift in favour of his daughter-in-law and two grandsons in the year 1965.

7. Thus, it was contended that as on February 15, 1971, the said Nirmala Bala held only 4.78 acres of land, which came within the ceiling limit as prescribed by the 1955 Act.

8. However, the concerned BL & LRO, after holding an enquiry and taking evidence, arrived at the finding that the said gift deeds executed by Nirmala Bala Dassi were not bona fide transactions, but merely paper transactions having no effect. Accordingly, it was ordered that the 6.74 acres of land of the concerned Mouza, which were gifted to the grandsons and the daughter-in-law, were benami lands of the said Nirmala Bala Dassi.

9. The said order having been affirmed by the appellate authority, being the DL & LRO, Hooghly, under Section 54 of the 1955 Act, OA No. 4162 of 2002(LRTT) was preferred by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal, which culminated in the impugned judgment dated April 11, 2025, whereby the findings of the BL & LRO and DL & LRO were affirmed.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the writ petitioners, although the BL & LRO relied on the evidence of two witnesses, purportedly of the neighbourhood of the said plot. Thus, a cardinal principle of natural justice, to the effect that the affected party has a right of cross-examination, was violated.

11. Moreover, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Md. Saha Alam Fakir & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.  1981 (1) CHN 212 to argue that in an enquiry before the Revenue Officer, the principles of Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) would be applicable. 

12. Thus