IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN &

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE RVW 64 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2022 CAN 2 of 2022 In SAT 90 of 2020 Kasem Ali Mondal & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal For the Applicants : Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Md. Younush Mondal For the state : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Tuli Sinha Heard on : 20.06.2025 Judgment on : 30.06.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This review application arises from the order dated 10.12.2021 passed in SAT 90 of 2020, where it was observed after hearing the appeal that this the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as both the courts below have correctly upheld the respondent’s claim on appreciation of law and fact. The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Advocate in support of this review application argued that the property in question admittedly recorded as ‘jal kar’ but the Division Bench, while passed the judgment failed to consider that baor (uncared water body), jal kar, beel, water body cannot be vested under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and as such the error is apparent on the face of the order and that both the courts below have also erred in law and in fact in observing that the suit property is liable to be vested under the provision of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. His further contention is that, there was no requirement of filing ‘B’ form by the plaintiff for retention of the said property under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, since the plaintiff are all along in possession of the property by way of pisciculture for generation after generation, on the basis of execution of the registered deed of kabuliyat by late Waresh Mondal, predecessor of the appellant to the then Zamindar Annada Prasanna Mukhopadhyay and also by paying property Tax to the government of West Bengal. His further contention is that the appellants are the valid owner of the land in question and there is nothing to show that the land has been actually vested to the government and on the contrary the investigation commissioner appointed by the court confirmed the area of the tank fishery. The Division Bench failed to consider that the appellants are entitled to file ‘B’ form even now, if it is presumed that the same was not filed in case of tank fishery according to report of investigation commissioner and as such Division Bench ought to have remanded the appeal to the court below for further consideration.

3. Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Advocate argued that the appellant have no right to claim absolute right in the tank fishery and he was under an obligation to submit form ‘B’ within the prescribed time exercising the option to retain possession of the land in question as tank fishery. In this context, he placed reliance upon the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd & another reported in AIR 1993 SC 2103.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties, pertaining the instant review application.

5. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, Supreme Court summarized the principles, where review are maintainable and also where review does not lie. It states in para 20.1 that review will be maintainable.

(i) Discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of petitioner or could not be produced by him (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of record (iii) Any other sufficient reason analogous to those specified in the rule.

6. The court has also laid down the principles where review is not maintainable at para 20.2 which reads as follows:-

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequentia