D/L.13.

August 5, 2025.

.

MNS WPLRT No. 113 of 2025 Subodh Mondal and others Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh … for the petitioners.

Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. AGP., Ms. Munmun Ganguly, Ms. Priyambada Singh …for the State-respondents.

1. Since no affidavits have been invited, it is deemed that none of the allegations made in the writ petition are admitted by the respondents.

2. In view of the relevant documents being annexed to the writ petition, the same is being taken up for hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that by the order which was impugned before the appellate authority, the Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners were holding land beyond the ceiling limit and vested the same, without taking into consideration the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had already transferred a part of the property prior to the cut-off date of August 7, 1969 as per the contemplation of Section 14P of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and, as such, erroneously clubbed those lands within the total land held by the petitioners/big raiyats.

4. Learned counsel further submits that a similar exercise was done earlier which was challenged before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated August 24, 1999 passed in CR No. 11376(W) of 1980, had set aside the said vesting on the ground that lands not belonging to the writ petitioners were clubbed along with their lands for such vesting.

5. It is submitted that in view of such exercise having already been undertaken once and culminated in the order of the learned Single Judge, the self- same exercise could not have been re-initiated by recommencing a vesting proceeding with regard to the petitioners’ land.

6. The Appellate Authority, despite having taken note of such facts, remanded the matter unnecessarily, which order was affirmed by the learned Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the State argues that the Appellate Authority was well within its powers in remanding the matter to the Revenue Officer.

8. Moreover, the remand order was in the nature of a limited remand and, as such, there was no illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the same.

9. That apart, the learned counsel placing reliance on Section 16Y of the 1955 Act, which empowers the State Government to recommence the vesting proceedings in respect of lands held by big raiyats.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we come to the following conclusions:

11. Insofar as the powers of the Appellate Authority under the 1955 Act in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 54 of the said Act are concerned, there is no quarrel with the proposition that undoubtedly the Appellate Authority is vested with the power of remand.

12. However, the question is whether the Appellate Authority was justified in exercising such power in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

13. We find from the observations of the Appellate Authority itself that it clearly took into consideration that the impugned order of vesting afresh was passed by totally ignoring the area of 6.03 acres of land transferred before the restricted period, that is, August 7, 1969.

14. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority took into consideration that there was a previous adjudication by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CR No. 11376(W) of 1980 on the self-

same issue. Despite taking into consideration the same, the Appellate Authority, instead of setting aside the fresh order of vesting of the Revenue Officer outright, remanded the matter unnecessarily, contrary to the principle embodied in Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

15. It is clear from the materials on record that the reopening of the self-same issue is not permissible in law, since there has to be an end of litigation and the principle of res judicata is applicable, since a vesting proceeding is in the nature of a quasi- judicial exercise where certain powers of assessing evidence are exe