JUDGMENT Even though this Rule which was obtained on September 22, 1976 was made ready as regards service on March 5, 1981, and there have been appearances entered on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9, Mr. Mujumdar being assisted by Mr. Ganguly appeared for respondent No.5 only, at the time of hearing 0f the matter. Other respondents, including the State and Central Government respondents have neither appeared nor opposed the prayers as made or have filed any opposition. 2. The petitioner, Chitavalsah Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioner), is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and it has been stated that they had advertised and invited offers in the issues of the Statesman, Calcutta, for sale of 3 plots of land, being plot Nos. 5, 10 and 11 (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), at premises No. 57B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to the said premises), of which the petitioners have also claimed to be the owners. It has been stated that in response to such advertisement, the petitioners received various offers for the said plots and ultimately they agreed to accept the offer made by one Anand Chand Bhura, respondent No. 6 and to sell to him or his nominee the said plot and the offer as made by the said Sri Bhura was approved at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the said petitioners, as held on March 15, 1973. The respondent No.5, Kamal Kumar Surana, for whom Mr. Majumdar is appearing was the nominee of the respondent No.6. It was the case of the petitioners that such acceptance was duly communicated and informed to the said Sri Bhura. The respective agreed prices for sale have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition and the said petitioners have also stated that a Bank draft for Rs. 21,000/-, which was sent by the said Shri Bhura, was adjusted towards earnest money, for securing the concerned sale. 3. The said petitioners have stated that pursuant to such agreement for sale, the said Shri Bhura, in or about October 1974, requested the petitioners to execute three deeds of conveyance in respect of the said plots and to which the said petitioners had also agreed. 3. The said petitioners have stated that pursuant to such agreement for sale, the said Shri Bhura, in or about October 1974, requested the petitioners to execute three deeds of conveyance in respect of the said plots and to which the said petitioners had also agreed. It was their case that in or about October 1974, the said petitioners duly applied to the Income Tax Authorities, for the issue of necessary certificate of clearance under the Income Tax Act, to enable them to execute the concerned deeds and such certificate, was also duly issued by the Income Tax Authority concerned. But, the deeds of conveyance in question, could not be registered as the verification of title by the intending purchasers, had not been completed. It was also the case of the said petitioners that in the meantime on or about November, 1974, at the request of the purchasers or the persons in whose favour the conveyances were required to be executed, vacant possession of the said plots were delivered and after taking such possession, the purchaser or the allottees as nominated by them, also exercised their acts of possession. These apart, the said petitioners have also stated that other acts or actions, necessary for completion of the transactions, were also duly taken by them. 4. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 according to the said petitioners, was introduced in the Parliament on January 28, 1976 and as such, it was claimed that January 28, 1976 should be the appointed date, within the meaning of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), which became operative in West Bengal on and from February 17, 1976. The relevant provisions of the said Act, to which references were made at the Bar, would be sections 26, 27 and 28 of the said Act, which are quoted hereunder :- Section 26. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. (2) where a notice given under sub-section (1) is for the transfer of the land by way of sale, the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government at a price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), or of any other corresponding law for the time being in force and if such option is not exercised within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice, it shall be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase as such land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like: Provided that where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. (3) For the purpose of calculating the price of any vacant land under sub-section (2), it shall be deemed that a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act; 1894 (1of 1894) or under the relevant provision any other corresponding law for the time being in force, had been issued for the acquisition of such vacant land on the date on which the notice was given under sub-section (1) of this section. Section 27. Section 27. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provision of sub-section (3) of section 5 and sub-section (4) of section 10, no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise, any urban or urbanisable land with a building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act) or a portion only of such building for a period of ten years of such commencement from the dote on which the building is constructed, whichever is later, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. (2) Any person desiring to make a transfer referred to in subsection (1), may make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the competent authority may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, by order in writing, grant or refuse to grant the permission applied for: Provided that the competent authority shall not refuse to grant the permission applied for unless it has recorded in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same has been communicated to the applicant. (4) Where within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. (4) Where within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. (5)(a) Where the permission applied for is for the transfer of the land with the building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building referred to in sub-section (1) by way of sale, and the competent authority is of the opinion that such permission may be granted, then, the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building on behalf of the State Government at such price as may be agreed upon between the competent authority and the applicant or, in a case where there is no such agreement, at such price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), or of any other corresponding law for the time being in force. (b) If the option referred to in clause (a) is not exercised within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application under this section, it shall be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like: Provided that, where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building, the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. (6) For the purpose of calculating the price of land and building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building under Clause (a) of sub-section (5), it shall be deemed that a notification under subsection (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or under the relevant provision of any other corresponding law for the time being in force, had been issued for the acquisition of that land and building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building on the date on which the application was made under sub-section (2). Section 28. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), purports to transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or any building (including any portion thereof), (a) in the case of any transfer referred to in section 26, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer evidence to show that he has given notice of the intended transfer to the competent authority under that section and, where such transfer is by way of sale, the period of sixty days referred to in subsection (2) of that section has elapsed; (b) in the case of any transfer referred to in section 27, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer the permission in writing of the competent authority for such transfer or satisfies the registering officer that the period of sixty days referred to in sub-section (4) of that section has elapsed. It was the case of the said petitioners that the said lands, fall within the urban agglomeration as defined in the said Act and would be vacant lands within the meaning of the said Act. 5. It was claimed by Mr. Banerjee, appearing in support of the Rule, that the said Act has no retrospective operation and under the provisions of sections 26 and 27 as quoted above, the Act required notices to be given for "intended transfere', and not for transfers already made. It was claimed by Mr. 5. It was claimed by Mr. Banerjee, appearing in support of the Rule, that the said Act has no retrospective operation and under the provisions of sections 26 and 27 as quoted above, the Act required notices to be given for "intended transfere', and not for transfers already made. It was claimed by Mr. Banerjee that in the said Act, "transfer" has not been defined, but it would be clear that what is meant by the sections as mentioned above, would be "intended or proposed transfers". He further claimed that sections 26 and 27, would only be referred to in case of transfers to be effected, by execution of sale deed, after the commencement of the said Act, and since in the instant case, all sale deeds were executed prior to such commencement in the State, and transfers were completed for the purpose of or in terms of the said Act, before the same came into operation, provisions of sections 26 and 27, would have no application. It was also claimed by Mr. Banerjee that section 28 of the said Act which refers to the registration of transfers as contemplated and under sections 26 and 27, does not bar the registration of documents in general or executed prior to the commencement of the said Act. 6. In this proceeding, it has also been stated that after the lapse of the Income Tax clearance certificate as mentioned above, a prayer for revalidation of the same, having been made, such revalidation was allowed and even though such fact was made known to the authorities concerned, they have refused and are refusing to register the instruments in question and more particularly of transfer of the said lands, in view of the provisions of section 28 of the said Act. In fact, it has been stated that the Registrar concerned under the said Act, has refused to accept for registration, such instruments of transfer which have been placed before him for registration, by various vendors of vacant lands and he has given out or is giving out that he would not effect the concerned registration including those of the said petitioner unless notice in writing has been given. On the above facts and circumstances as disclosed, Mr. On the above facts and circumstances as disclosed, Mr. Banerjee claimed that the provisions of sections 26 and 27 of the said Act, being prospective in operation, they do not apply to transfers already effected or such transfers which have been effected prior to the coming into force of the said Act in West Bengal and in any event, those sections have no retrospective effect. It was thus submitted by Mr. Banerjee that since the provisions were not retrospective, the acts or actions of the authorities concerned, in refusing to register the transfers, were not only without jurisdiction, but such actions were irregular, void and passed on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Mr. Majumdar has appeared for respondent No.5 and in fact, he adopted the submissions as made by Mr. Banerjee. 7. On construction of the provisions of the said Act as mentioned above, and so also the preamble and the intention behind the said Act, there is no room for doubt, that operative date under the said Act, should be January 28, 1976. Statutes should be deemed to be effective from the date as mentioned in the statute itself, unless any other date is mentioned, or it is categorically stated that the same would have retrospective operation. The said Act was made applicable in West Bengal on and from February 17, 1976. Thus, the said Act, agreeing with the submissions of Mr. Banerjee, I hold, cannot be retrospective but is prospective and effective from January 28, 1976 and effective in West Bengal from 17th February, 1976. As such, I am of the view that the transactions which were completed or closed prior to the coming into force of the said Act or before the appointed and operative date, could not be hit or guided by the said Act and more particularly, sections 26, 27 and 28 as mentioned above. 8. Such being the position, the Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let appropriate writs be issued. It should be noted that the case of (1) Maharao Sahid Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India. (1981) 1 SCC 166 , where section 27(1) of the said Act has been struck down by the Supreme Court of India, was cited at the Bar, for ascertaining the background of the said Act or the intentions behind the same.