JUDGMENT This Rule was obtained on June 17, 1970 and was made ready as regards service on March 7, 1979. The Rule is directed against a threatened action of taking forcible possession of the lands as mentioned in annexure 'B'. 2. The petitioners have stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 164 decimals of land by registered kobala and for valuable consideration, from one Md. Abdul Ojha. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 purchased 56 acres of such lands by registered kobala dated January 17, 1958 and for valuable consideration from the said Md. Abdul Ojha and petitioner No. 5 purchased 25 acres of agricultural lands by registered kobala dated August 27, 1968 and for valuable consideration, from the said Md. Ojha. By the purchase as mentioned above, it has been claimed that the petitioners became owners and purchasers of 1.45 acres of land and they have also claimed to be in possession of those lands on payment of rents against proper receipts. It has also been stated that none of the petitioners has lands more than a ceiling. 3. It appears that in the year 1957, a Big Raiyat Case, being No. 36 of 1957, was initiated by the Revenue Officer, Rampurhat, 'B' Camp, against the said Ojha, who is Respondent No.7 in this proceeding and ultimately such proceeding was disposed of on January 6, 1960. Thereafter, on October 1, 1966, the said Big Raiyat Case No. 36 of 1957 was sought to be reviewed and notice for the same was issued to respondent No.7. The petitioners have stated that although by this time, they came in possession in the manner as indicated above and this was known to the authorities concerned no notice of such initiation was ever served on them and in fact they had not had the due or necessary opportunities to establish their case. It has been stated by them that at the time of their purchase, they were not aware of the pending Big Raiyat Case. 4. Be that as it may, in this proceeding, Mr. Islam, appearing in support of the Rule, contended that since there is no power of review under the provision of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, so the proceeding taken on review, was void, illegal and improper. 4. Be that as it may, in this proceeding, Mr. Islam, appearing in support of the Rule, contended that since there is no power of review under the provision of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, so the proceeding taken on review, was void, illegal and improper. In support of such contentions, he relied on the determinations of this Court in the case of (1) Indra Devi v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1967 Calcutta 469 which has been approved subsequently by the Supreme Court in the case of (2) State of West Bengal v. Indra Devi, 1977 (3) SCC 559 . 5. The respondents have not filed any return to the Rule. But they have got their case represented through Mr. Subimal Mitra, who referred to section 53 and section 57A and thereby wanted to establish that from the scheme of the Act or the terms of those sections, it may be possible that the power of review with all intents and purposes has been given. Section 53 lays down the authorities for the purpose of the said Act and section 57A deals with powers of State Government to invest certain authorities with powers of Civil Court. In this case, there is no such power of review given to the officer concerned in the statute and there is also no evidence when such power has been invested to him by the State Government. Even in terms of section 57A, a power of review in terms of the determination as mentioned above can only be used or exercised, if such power is specifically given in the statute and such power in the instant case, not having been so specifically given, the review as was taken up, in my view, was incompetent. 6. This Rule is thus made absolute. The order as made on initiation of review is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. This will not, however, prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh in the matter and to make proper determination in accordance with law, if they are so advised and are entitled to.