Judgment : The deities, Sri Sri Iswari Lakshmi Mata Thakurani and Sri Sri Iswar Radha Krisna Jaw Thakur being represented by their Shebaits, moved and obtained this Rule, with the corresponding interim order, on 2nd August, 1976, against the appellate order dated 18th May, 1976, made by the learned District Judge, Burdwan, in E. A. Appeal No.6 of 1971, affirming thereby the order dated 6th September, 1971, made in 5A Case no. 132 of 1971 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Ghaskara. 2. The lands which were the subject matter of the d dispute, would be about 15,11 acres of agricultural lands, which initially belonged to Shri Amulya Laha and Asutosh Laha. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands in question were orally dedicated by the Lahas as mentioned above, to the two deities, whose names have been mentioned hereinbefore, without any formal deed of Arpannama. It is the case of the petitioners that such Arpannama was not executed, as the value of the properties in issue was leas than Rs. 100/-. 3. The petitioners have stated that since the dedication as mentioned above, the deities in question, were in possession of the properties as dedicated through their shebaits and the usufructs from the properties were utilised for the Sebapuja for the deities. It has also been stated that regular account books were kept and maintained and the settlors ceased to have any personal right, tit It, interest and possession in the properties in question and the interest of the deities was duly and correctly recorded in the Revisional Record of Rights. 4. It appears that after the death or Shri Asutosh Laha, one of the settlors, it became necessary to secure proper management of the Debottar Estate and to enumerate the specific duties of the shebaits as well as to secure regular performance of the sebapuja, a confirmatory deed of Arpannama was executed and registered on 9th April, 1956 by Shri Amulya Chran Laha, the other settlor, and Smt. Ambalika Laha, the widow of another settlor. The petitioners have alleged that the deed as mentioned above, was only a confirmatory one and the deities in question continued to possess the properties as before through their shebaits. 5. The petitioners have alleged that the deed as mentioned above, was only a confirmatory one and the deities in question continued to possess the properties as before through their shebaits. 5. After coming into force of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Assistant Settlement Officer concerned, who ii Respondent No.3, initiated a proceeding under section 5A of the said Act, against the deities and so also the heirs of the settlers, to investigate whether the transfer as made, was bona fide. This proceeding was contested by the deities contending, inter alia, amongst others, that the transfer in question was a bona fide one. The jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding was also contested and it appears that the shebaits, who are the heirs of the settlors, also supported the deities. The petitioners have stated that it would appear from the Khatians duly published and recorded, that the settlors were "Intermediaries", within the meaning of the said Act and their interest vested in the State of West Bengal on 15th April, 1955 and accordingly it has been claimed, without, of course, admitting the fact that since the dedication was made on 9th April, 1956, only by the Arpannama as mentioned above, the officer concerned had jurisdiction to initiate the said proceeding under section 5A of the said Act and to investigate whether the transfer was bona fide or not as the alleged transfer was not within tile prohibited period, viz. 5th May, 1953 and 15th April, 1955. The petitioners have further claimed that before the officer concerned, the deities produced the account hooks and various relevant documents, apart from leading oral evidence, to substantiate the case as was sought to made out by the deities and the particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore. It has been admitted, that thereafter, a local inspection by the officer concerned himself was made. It has been stated that on such enquiry the officer concerned found a pucca Mandir and that regular sebapuja was performed. It has been alleged by the petitioners that even inspite of such facts or findings, the officer concerned, by his order 6th September, 1971, held that the transfer was not bona fide. This order is in Annexure-A to the petition. It has been alleged by the petitioners that even inspite of such facts or findings, the officer concerned, by his order 6th September, 1971, held that the transfer was not bona fide. This order is in Annexure-A to the petition. From a reference to the order as mentioned above, It would also appear that it has been found that the main object of the transfer by the transferors, was to increase the amount of land, which they were entitled to retain under the provisions of the said Act and the story made out by the shebaits in question, that an oral dedication was made as far back as in 1342 B.S. was nothing but a myth. It has also been observed that the Arpannama which was brought into existence on 9th April, 1956, was apparently after the prohibitory period and for the purposes as mentioned above. It has also been held that the recitals of the said document would clearly show that the lands in question were all along being treated u the secular properties of the transferors. There apart, the account book, as produced, were found to be personal documents of the shebaits and their reliability wall doubted. 6. From such determinations, an appeal being F.A. Appeal No.6 of 1971, was taken but the same was also dismissed on 18th May, 1976. The appellate order is in Annexure-B to the petition. The appellate order has confirmed the findings arrived at by the Assistant Settlement Officer and has categorically stated on evidence that the story about the oral dedication was a myth and that the transfer of secular properties, was made after the prohibitory period, with the object of retaining more lands. From a reference to the appellate order it would also appear that it was contended in that proceeding that the proceeding as initiated or the determinations as made was improper as the Bargadars, who were in possession of the lands in question, were not impleaded as parties. 7. The Rule has been contested by the Junior Land Reforms Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer concerned, who are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition dated 29th March, 1978, through Shri Manis Chandra Choudhuri, Special Revenue Officer, Grade-II. This deponent has claimed to be attached to Settlement Officer, Rajbati, Burdwan and as such, he has stated that he is well acquinted with the facts of the case. 2 and 3 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition dated 29th March, 1978, through Shri Manis Chandra Choudhuri, Special Revenue Officer, Grade-II. This deponent has claimed to be attached to Settlement Officer, Rajbati, Burdwan and as such, he has stated that he is well acquinted with the facts of the case. The oral dedication of the lands in question by the Lahas as mentioned above, in favour of the deities, has been denied by the deponent. He has stated that the said oral dedication made as far back in 1342 B.S. could not be admitted and such dedication became ineffective as the actual transfer took place by the registered deed on 9th April, 1956 i.e. between 5th May, 1953, and after the date of vesting. The deponent has also claimed that the transfer of the lands in question, in favour of the family deities, on the part of the owners, who held ngricu1tural lauds above the prescribed ceiling on the date of vesting, was not acceptable in the absence of a registered deed of gift and the oral transfer among family members, was absolutely a concocted story and had no legal basis. He has stated that the subsequent transfer by virtue of the registered deed dated 9th April, 1956, does not corroborate the reason of non-registration, on the plea of valuation of the properties and the provisions of Indian Trust Act, as alleged. 8. The deponent has further denied that since the transfer by the Lahas as mentioned in the petition, the deities in question were in possession of the properties so dedicated through the shebaits and the usufructs from the properties, used for the sebapuja of the deities. He has further denied that the settlers ceased to have any personal right, title, interest and possession in the properties in issue and has stated that such interest could not cease lawfully, by mere oral dedication of properties in favour of the deities. He has also denied the statements that the usufructs form these properties was utilised for the use of the deities and the sebapuja. A reference has been made by the deponent to the two orders as mentioned above and it has been stated that since the account books as produced, could not be believed or it was not established that they were duly and properly kept, the orders under challenge, were due, legal and proper and made with jurisdiction. A reference has been made by the deponent to the two orders as mentioned above and it has been stated that since the account books as produced, could not be believed or it was not established that they were duly and properly kept, the orders under challenge, were due, legal and proper and made with jurisdiction. It has also been stated that from the records of the concerned appeals and B.E. Case Nos. 120 and 121 of 1968, which were interlinked, it would appear that Shri Amulya Charan Laha and Smt. Ambalik Devi, on the date of vesting, held more lands than the ceiling, so far agricultural lands are concerned and as such the transfer in favour of the deities, was also nothing but a sham transaction and it was thus appropriately held that the said transfer was a myth. In fact, the deponent has stated that the transfer in question, was a clear device by the petitioners to retain more lands than the ceiling in the name of family deities. He has also stated that the confirmatory deed in question, after several year of the so-called oral gift, was a device to evade ceiling laws. The fact that the settlors were "Inter-mediaries" within the meaning of the said Act, has been admitted and it has been stated that their interest vested in the State of West Bengal on 15th April, 1955, and since the transfer was made by the purported dedication on 9th April, 1956, the actions as taken, were due, bona fide, proper and legal. 9. Although various points have been taken in the petition but Mr. Roy Chowdhury, appearing in support of the Rule only contended that the interest of settlers being that of "Inter-mediries" and the said "Interest" had vested in the State of West Bengal on, 5th April, 1955, and the disputed deed was executed on 9th April, 1956, the authorities, under section 5A of the said Act had no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding, as the alleged transfer was not made within the prohibited period viz. 5th May, 1953 and 15th April, 1955. It was the contention of Mr. 5th May, 1953 and 15th April, 1955. It was the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that in terms of section 5A(1) of the said Act, which lays down that the State Government may after the date of vesting enquire into any case of transfer of any land by Intermediary, made between the 5th day of May, 1953 and the date of vesting if in its opinion there are prima facie reason for believing that such transfer was not bona fide, the enquiry as sought to be initiated, was improper and without jurisdiction, as the transfer by the Arpannma in question was made in the instant case on 9th April, 1956 i.e. after the period as mentioned in the said lection. It support of such submissions, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, referred to of the each determinations of this Court in the case of (1) Ambujakshya Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., I. L. R. 1966 (1) Cal 495. He made specific reference. to the observations in paragraph 57 of the judgment delivered by P.B. Mukharji, J. as His Lordship then was and those In paragraph 55 of the judgment of C. N. Lak, J. as His Lordship then was. The observations of the learned Judges in the case as referred to hereinbefore, in my view, do not strictly support the contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury. Thereafter, Mr. Roy Chowdhury referred to the determination in the case of (2) Benode Behari Mondal and Ors., v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., A.I.R. 1971 Cal 400. In that cue, the point for consideration was as to whether an earlier decision made by a competent authority, in a proceeding under section 5A of the Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 in respect of a particular transfer of a particular land, constitutes a bar in law for the same proceeding, by the slime authority in respect of the same transfer and over the lame land. The learned Judge on application of the principle that a licence adjudicated cannot be adjudicated over again, came to the conclusion that the subsequent initiation under section 5A as made in that case, was without jurisdiction. Such view was taken as the first initiation under section 5A, which was made on 13th March, 1959, holding the transfer to be bona fide, could not be re-opened subsequently. Such view was taken as the first initiation under section 5A, which was made on 13th March, 1959, holding the transfer to be bona fide, could not be re-opened subsequently. While making the said determination the learned Jude has observed that the Special Revenue Officer in that case was obviously in error in thinking that a proceeding under section 5A must necessarily and either with a declaration that transfer was bona fide or it was not. The learned Judge hall observed that the Special Revenue Officer was over-looking that there are other limitations too in the section itself. He has stated that the section limits itself to transfers effected between 5th May, 1953 and the date of vesting, apart from the limitations imposed by the statutory definition of transfer for the purpose of the section. The determination as mentioned hereinbefore, in my view, do not also lay down a proposition, which supports the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, as mentioned hereinbefore. 10. The said section 5A as appears, was introduced for the purpose of avoiding large transfers, which were effected or sought to be effected on the publication of the Bill on 5th May, 1953, in the Official Gazette and that is why the said date has been mentioned in section 5A(1) of the said Act. The amendment introducing the said section 5A, was introduced or inserted With retrospective effect by section 2 or the West Bengal Estate Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1954 dud the date of vesting, as was originally provided for, was 14th April, 1955 and as such the two dates, 5th May 1933 and 14th April, 1955, represent the period of time within which transfers were liable to be scrutinised. The obvious policy of the section was to prevent large scale evasion of the statute. The object of the section is to find out whether the transfer were bona fide or not. By keeping the background and the object of the section I think the construction as suggested by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, would be too narrow. The intention of the Legislature incorporating the section, being to prevent large scale evasion of the statute, the transfer, in the instant case, which was made on 9th April, 1956, cannot be outside the purview of section 5A. If the said construction as has been sought to be asked by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, would be too narrow. The intention of the Legislature incorporating the section, being to prevent large scale evasion of the statute, the transfer, in the instant case, which was made on 9th April, 1956, cannot be outside the purview of section 5A. If the said construction as has been sought to be asked by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is given, the effect would be disastrous and many transferors like the present one would go without any check. The oral dedication in the instant case, not having been believed, the lands of the settlers, who were inter-mediaries, admittedly vested in the State on 15th April, 1955 and such vesting being operative and the lands were not retained lands by the subsequent Apannama, dated 9th April, 1956, the settlers had no right to transfer the lands in question, in favour of the deities. Since such transfer was made after the date of vesting, so in my view, and for the reasons as mentioned above, the authorities concerned had the right and jurisdiction to find out whether such transfer was bona fide. Taking of such steps in the instant case, in my view, were in conformity with the intention of the Legislature and the statute. 11. The above being the position, I do not find any reason to entertain the submissions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury and as such, this Rule is discharged. There will be no order for costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the order as made is refused.