JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is directed against an Appellate Order allowing an application under section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and setting aside a sale held on 23rd August 1954 in the course of rent execution case No. 933 of 1954, of the Court of Munsif, Bishnupur. The application for setting aside the sale under section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, was filed by some of the judgment-debtors on 10th October, 1955, i.e., much more than six months after the date of the sale, and the application was therefore prima facie barred by limitation. The applicants however, alleged in their application that the sale proclamation and other processes had been fraudulently suppressed and they had first come to know of the sale on 1st October, 1955, from one Gokul Chandra Pal. 2. AT the hearing of the case before the learned Munsif, neither Gokul Chandra Pal nor any other witness was examined to prove fraudulent suppression of the sale proclamation and other processes and the applicants' case as to the date of knowledge. As a matter of fact, it appears from order No. 22 dated 2nd April, 1956, that the applicants abandoned their case under section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and only pressed the alternative case that the sale was void in view of section 5b of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Section 5b of the Estates Acquisition Act provides that on and from 1st June, 1954, no estate, tenure or under-tenure shall be liable to be sold under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 etc., and any sale which took place on or after that date shall be void. The case of the applicants was that the property sold in the execution case was a tenure, being recorded in the finally published C. S. khatian as such and therefore section 5b of the Estates Acquisition Act would apply and the sale having been held on 23rd August, 1954, i.e., after the 1st day of June, 1954, was void. The decree-holder auction purchaser however, contended that though recorded as a tenure in the finally published khatian the jote was really a raiyati holding, and to prove this contention the decree-holder auction-purchaser produced a patta on the basis of which the land had been let out to the judgment-debtors. The decree-holder auction purchaser however, contended that though recorded as a tenure in the finally published khatian the jote was really a raiyati holding, and to prove this contention the decree-holder auction-purchaser produced a patta on the basis of which the land had been let out to the judgment-debtors. The learned Munsif held on his interpretation of the patta that the lease of the tank and its banks given by the patta did not create a tenure but only a raiyati holding, it being the admitted case of both the parties that the lease would be governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act and not by the Non-agricultural Tenancy Act. 3. EVEN on the basis that it was a raiyati holding the applicants contended that the sale was void, on the ground that section 5b and other sections of the Chapter II of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act had been extended to raiyati holdings by notifications under section 49 of Chapter VI and by the operation of section 52 in Chapter vi. Section 52 provides that on the issue of a notification under section 49 the provisions of Chapter II, III, V and vii, shall with such modifications, as may be necessary, apply mutatis mutandis to raiyats and under-raiyats as if such raiyats and under-raiyats were intermediaries and the lands held by them were estates. The notifications under section 49 were published on 10th April, 1956, and thereupon Chapter II and other Chapters have become applicable to the raiyatis as if they are estates. The learned Munsif, however, observed that section 5b was to be applied with necessary modifications, and that in view of the fact that Chapter II was made applicable to raiyatis only on the issue of notifications on 10th April, 1956, he held that the sale after 1st June, 1954 of a raiyati holding could not be held to be void, but a sale of a raiyati holding held after the issue of the notifications under section 49 would be void under section 5b, i.e., a sale held on or after 10th April 1956 would be void. 4. THE learned Munsif therefore, refused to set aside the sale. There was an appeal which was heard by the District Judge, Bankura. 4. THE learned Munsif therefore, refused to set aside the sale. There was an appeal which was heard by the District Judge, Bankura. The learned District judge affirmed the finding of the learned Munsif that the interest of the judgment-debtors applicants was a raiyati and not a tenure; but he held that in section 5b the date mentioned viz., 1st June, 1954, could not be altered by the Court by taking advantage of the phrases "with such modifications as may be necessary" and "mutatis mutandis" occurring in section 52 of the Act. The learned District Judge held that even in the case of raiyatis the effective date after which Court sales shall be void would be the 1st of June, 1954, once the notifications under section 49 had been issued, and in this view he held that the sale was void and so he set aside the sale. From that decision the decree-holder auction-purchaser has filed this revisional application. Mr. Joy Gopal Ghose appearing for the petitioner has urged that section 5b of the Estates Acquisition Act could not be made applicable to raiyatis without making a suitable alteration in the effective dated mentioned therein, and that the effective date after which court sales a raiyatis would be void could not be the 1st June, 1954, but it must be 10th April, 1956. Mr. Bhabesh Chandra Mitter appearing for the opposite party has urged that the Courts below were wrong in holding that the interest of the judgment-debtor applicants was that of raiyats and that the entry in the record of rights showing them to be tenure-holders should be accepted, and if that is done, then clearly the sale was void under section 5b of the Estates Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the points for decision are firstly, whether the interest of the applicants opposite parties is that of tenure-holders or raiyats, and secondly, if they are raiyats what should be the effective date in section 5b of the Estates acquisition Act after which court sales of raiyati holdings would become void. 5. AS regards the first point, it is true that in the finally published khatian the interest of the opposite parties is recorded as that of tenure holders. But the petitioner landlords are niskar tenure-holders and the interest under them could not be that of tenure-holders; at best it could be under-tenure-holder. 5. AS regards the first point, it is true that in the finally published khatian the interest of the opposite parties is recorded as that of tenure holders. But the petitioner landlords are niskar tenure-holders and the interest under them could not be that of tenure-holders; at best it could be under-tenure-holder. But there was only the lease of about 24 bighas of land by the patta comprising the tank and its banks, and the purpose of the lease as pointed out by the learned Munsif was not to settle tenants on the land but to catch fish from the tank and to grow trees on the banks and the opposite parties were also given the right to appropriate trees existing on the banks. As regards the fishing from the tank the tank is one subject to a public user and therefore there could not be much scope for fishing the small tank. Therefore the practical purpose of the lease was growing and appropriating trees on the banks, and this being a horticultural purpose must be regarded as coming within the Scope of a raiyati lease for agricultural purposes. I, therefore, agree with the findings of the Courts below that the entry in c. s. khatian was wrong and that the proper status of the opposite parties is that of raiyats in respect of the jote in question. 6. THE next question is whether section 5b of the Estates Acquisition Act would apply to raiyati holdings with an alteration of the effective date or without any such alteration. Mr. Mitter referred to the principles of construction of statutes in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 1953 Edition page 222, and he has referred to the observation "if a statute is in its nature a declaratory Act the argument that it must not be construed so as to take away any previous right is not applicable." Mr. Mitter has urged that in the present case the amendment in respect of Chapter VI of the Act taken with the notification under section 49 of Chapter VI of the Act constitutes a declaratory legislation declaring that the raiyaties come within the scope of the Act along with estates and tenures; and that therefore the amendment taken with the notification under section 49 cannot be interpreted as merely prospective and not retrospective. I cannot however, agree with Mr. I cannot however, agree with Mr. Mitter that the amendment of sections 49 and 52 in particular in Chapter VI of the Estates Acquisition Act is equivalent to a declaratory legislation. As the Estates Acquisition Act was originally passed, it did not apply to raiyatis at all. On 29th November, 1955, by an amending Act, Chapter VI was radically altered making provision for the State Government to issue a notification whereupon raiyatis and under-raiyatis would be deemed to be estates within the meaning of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition act. It is difficult to accept the argument that as soon as such declaration is issued the court sales of raiyati and under-raiyati jote would become retrospectively void from a date which had long passed. As it is there is a gap of nearly 2 years between the date mentioned in section 5b and the date of the notification by which the Act has been made applicable to raiyati interests. But the notification might well have been issued later, after the lapse of several years, and it would be difficult to argue that even in that case, the effective date for the application of section 5b in respect of sale of raiyati jotes would be the 1st of June, 1954. I would hold that in any case the effective date to be inserted in section 5b when we are concerned with the sale of raiyati jotes cannot be any date earlier than 25th November, 1955, when sections 49 and 52 of Chapter VI were substituted for the old sections, and I am inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Ghose that the date to be substituted in section 5b for avoiding the court sales of raiyati jotes would be 10th April, 1956, the date of issue of the notifications under section 49, and not the date on which the sections 49 and 52 in their present forms were substituted by amendment of the Estates Acquisition Act. It is to be observed that in section 52, it is clearly provided that the provision of Chapters II etc., shall not apply as they are, but they shall apply with necessary modifications. It is to be observed that in section 52, it is clearly provided that the provision of Chapters II etc., shall not apply as they are, but they shall apply with necessary modifications. When the Act became applicable to raiyati jotes from a much later date, it is also necessary modification of section 5b of Chapter II that the date mentioned in section 5b from which court-sale of raiyati jotes should become void would be a much later date viz., the date on which by notification the Act was made applicable to raiyati interests. I, therefore, think that the learned Munsif was right in his view and not the learned District Judge. This Rule is accordingly made absolute and the order of the learned district Judge is set aside and that of the learned Munsif is restored. No order is made as to costs of this Court.