JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order passed by Shri amitabha Dutta, Tribunal Judge alipore in Estates Acquisition Appeal no. 7 of 1971 setting aside the order of a. S.O. Diamond Harbour 'c' Camp, district 24-Parganas passed in a proceeding initiated suo motu under section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) revising the finally published R.S. resord of rights Nos. 310 and 314 of Mouza Radhakrishnapur. 2. THE facts out of which the case arises, may briefly be stated like this: the property in question was previously recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 186/1 of mouza Radhakrishnapur in the name of one Benoy Kumar Guira in the raiyati interest. The same was sold in Rent Execution Case No. 606 of 1954 on September 10, 1954. It was purchased by the opposite parties who took delivery of possession therein through Court on January 2, 1955. The Revenue Officer started suo moto proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the Act and found that as the sale took place after the 1st day of June, 1954 the same was to be treated as void as it offended the provision of section 5b of the Act. 3. THE opposite parties' contention was that the provisions for bringing the rayati interest in Chapter VI of the act were incorporated in the Act subsequent to the sale. Those provisions came into operation on the 10th April, 1956 by Government Notification as per provisions of section 49 of the Act. It was urged that in the case of raiyati interest the prohibition against sale should be considered to have been imposed from the 10th April, 1956 the date when chapter VI of the said Act was introduced and not from 1st of June, 1954 as originally provided in section 5b of the Act. 4. THE learned Tribunal Judge held that in the absence of clear provisions in section 52 and the connected government notification the provision of section 5b cannot be applied with retrospective effect in respect of sale of raiyati interest and declaring the same void if the sale be held before the 10th of April, 1956, when section 52 came into operation. For that reason the tribunal Judge is of the view that as the sale took place on September 10, 1954 the same cannot be declared to be void. For that reason the tribunal Judge is of the view that as the sale took place on September 10, 1954 the same cannot be declared to be void. The said order has been impugned in this case by the State of West bengal. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the decision of the Tribunal Judge cannot be supported for the reason that in section 52 of the Act there is no specific date mentioned, prohibiting the sale. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury the provision of section 5b will apply in its entirety to the fact of this case. It may, however, be noted that we are not getting any assistance from any learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. None on their behalf has entered appearance in this case. 5. BEFORE dealing with the question at issue we want to refer to the gradual development necessitating the appropriate legislation for introducing chapter VI in its application to the estates contemplated in the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act came into operation on the 12th day of february, 1954. Sections 5a and 5b were not in the Act when the Estates acquisition Act first came into force but those sections were inserted with retrospective effect the result being that those sections should be deemed to have been in the Act when the Act first came into operation. Similarly, sections 49 and 52 as they now stand, were not in the Act when the same came into force. They were substituted in 1955 but with retrospective effect, i. e. those should be deemed to have been in the Act from the date when the Act first came into force. Chapter vi relates to the Acquisition of interest of raiyats and under-raiyats. The law as was first enacted, contemplated estates other than raiyats and under-raiyats but the legislation decided to include the raiyats and under-raiyats within the definition of estates. With that object in view Chapter VI was introduced and that too with the retrospective effect. The validity of the said provision stood the test of judicial examination in the case of Bhutnath Das v. State of West Bengal reported in A.I.R. (1964) Calcutta 552. It was contended therein that retrospective operation of section 52 was not protected by article 31 (A) of the Constitution. The validity of the said provision stood the test of judicial examination in the case of Bhutnath Das v. State of West Bengal reported in A.I.R. (1964) Calcutta 552. It was contended therein that retrospective operation of section 52 was not protected by article 31 (A) of the Constitution. R.S. Bachawat and Arun K. Mukherjea, JJ. repelled the said contention which was raised by the appellants in that case. Their Lordships held : - "the new section 52 introduced by the Amending Act of 1955 came into force with retrospective effect as from the 12th February, 1954. Having regard to the retrospective operation of article 31a, a law passed on the 21.2.54 providing for the acquisition of the rights of raiyats and under-raiyats must be considered to enjoy the protection of Article 31a. Having regard to the retrospective operation of section 52, as it now stands the parent Act must be considered to have included in it on the 21.2.54, Section 52 as it now stands Both the parent Act I of 1954 and the amending Act 35 of 1955 having received the assent of the President satisfy the conditions of the proviso of Article 31a (1) and therefore enjoy the protection of article 31a of the Constitution." The result of the said finding was that their Lordships were of the view that the Act enjoyed the protection of the said Article 31a. 6. LET us now come to the relevant question as to the date from which the sale of interest of raiyats and under-raiyats as mentioned in section 5b of the Act may be said to have been barred. It is now to be considered whether the said provision should be taken to be effective from June 1, 1954 or from the 10th of April, 1956, i.e. the date of notification under section 49 by which the Act was made applicable to raiyati interest. The said question was raised in the case of Prahlad Chandra Dey v. Gobinda Chandra Dey and others, reported in 67 C.W.N. 452. The said question was raised in the case of Prahlad Chandra Dey v. Gobinda Chandra Dey and others, reported in 67 C.W.N. 452. That is a single bench decision delivered by S. K. Sen, J. It was held therein that the effective date to be inserted in section 5b of the Act in so far as the sale of raiyati jotes are concerned cannot be any date earlier than 25th November, 1955, when sections 49 and 52 of chapter VI were substituted for the old sections. That was a case in which the sale of raiyati interest took place on 23rd August, 1954, that is after the 1st day of June, 1954. It was held by the trial court that the sale having been held after the 1st day of June 1954 but prior to the 10th April, 1956 was not void but the said finding was reversed by the learned District Judge who held that the sale in question was void and he set aside the sale. The decision was challenged before Mr. Justice Sen. Reversing the said decision, his Lordship held: "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 V were substituted for the old sections and I am inclined to agree with the contention of Mr. Ghosh 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. 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". We have considered the said finding but we respectfully differ from the same for the reasons stated hereafter. Before we proceed further we refer to the provision of section 52 within Chapter VI of the Act. The relevant portion of which may be quoted here : "application of Chapters II, III, V and VII to raiyats and under-raiyats. On the issue of a notification under section 49 the provisions of Chapters 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 land held by them were estates and a person holding under a raiyat or an under-raiyats, were a raiyat for the purposes of clauses (c) and (d) of section 5." 7. MUCH stress has been given to the words "with such modification" as may be necessary. The question arises who will make the said modification. As observed by their Lordships in the case reported in A.I.R. 1964 Calcutta 552, section 52 was a familiar drafting device and to save repetition provide that certain chapters of the Act, would apply to raiyats and under-raiyats with the necessary modification and changes to the case of raiyats and under-raiyats. It implies that the modification, if it be made, it must be made by the government while issuing the notification as contemplated in section 49. In case the said duty is to be performed by the Court, the same can so be done, if under the law the said power can be so delegated to the Court. It is for the legislation to say what date should be considered in applying the provisions of section 5b and it is no function of the Courts to introduce the date of their own prohibiting the sale as contemplated in section 5b. It is well known that the first principle to be observed is that the judiciary does not legislate and legislative judgments are as a rule to be avoided. In the absence of any specific date in. the notification issued under section 49 the provision of section 5b as has been originally incorporated will come into force, result being that the prohibitive date should be effective from June 1, 1954. In the absence of any specific date in. the notification issued under section 49 the provision of section 5b as has been originally incorporated will come into force, result being that the prohibitive date should be effective from June 1, 1954. For the reasons stated we are unable to agree with the views expressed by sen, J. in the case referred to above, a similar point was considered by R.N. Dutt, J. in the case of Aftabuddin ahmed and Ors. v. State of West bengal and another, reported in 71 C.W.N. 300. That is a case in which the question of transfer of properties by an intermediary as provided in section 5a was considered. The prohibition of such transfer was fixed between the 5th day of May, 1953 and the date of vesting. Dutt, J. held therein that the effective date of prohibition should be considered to be the date as given in section 5a. The case reported in 67 C.W.N. 452 as already referred was also considered by Mr. Justice Dutt. The observation made by Sen, J. was not taken into consideration in the latter case as the same related to Court sale. In our view it makes very little difference. The principle initiated by Dutt, J. applies with all its force to the fact of this case as well. We are of the views that when legislature made sections 49 and 52 of the Act retrospective with effect from the day when the Act first came into force, it must be said that the date mentioned in section 5b must be the effective date not only in respect of the intermediaries whose estates vested in the State under section 5 but also in respect of intermediaries whose estates vested under section 52 of the Act, that is, raiyats and under-raiyats. When the words of section 5b specifically mentioned a certain date there is no scope to hold that in respect of raiyats and under-raiyats the effective date would be some other date because otherwise the raiyats and under-raiyats would be adversely affected. The legislature must have considered this aspect of the matter when it made sections 5a, 5b and 52 retrospective from the date when the Estates Acquisition Act first came into force. It being in the domain of the legislature, court cannot question the same. 8. The legislature must have considered this aspect of the matter when it made sections 5a, 5b and 52 retrospective from the date when the Estates Acquisition Act first came into force. It being in the domain of the legislature, court cannot question the same. 8. CONSIDERING the above matters and after hearing the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State we are of the views that the judgment of the Tribunal Judge should be set aside. In the result, the Rule is made absolute and the order passed by the tribunal Judge in E. A. Appeal No. 7 of 1971 is set aside and the order passed by A.S.O. in case No. 120 of 1970 under section 44 (2a) be upheld. As nobody appears to contest we are not passing any order as to costs against the opposite parties.