JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. In these three writ applications the subject matter of challenge, inter alia, is the order dated 27th November, 1981 passed by Sri K.K. Roy Burman Special Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal and the Appellate Authority under s 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 dismissing the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners against the order of the Competent Authority Alipore Sadar for issue of notices under s 6(2) of the said Act requiring them to file statements in Form I. The said Appellate Authority has upheld the Competent Authority’s primo facie opinion that the lands in question held by the petitioners were vacant lands within the meaning of the said Act. 2. The petitioners were owners of the following plots in mouza Kumrakhali p. s Sonarpur, dist 24 Parganas (A) Jaytilak Sen Plot No Area Classification (i) 1923 (Part) 44 decimals Danga (ii) 1936 41 ,, ,, (iii) 1935 25 ,, Doba and Bastu. (B) Jayattam Sen (i) 1930 (Part) 20 decimals doba (ii) 1936 04 acre sali (iii) 1934 11 acre danga (iv) 1931 12 acre danga (C) Jayashree Sen. (i) 1925 06 acre Sail (ii) 1920 12 acre danga (iii) 1930 08 acre doba 3. The case of the petitioners was that all the aforesaid plots were agricultural in character. Therefore, the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were inapplicable to them. They had entered into negotiations with several persons for sale of the laid plots. The petitioners had approached competent authority, Alipore Sader for giving them ‘No objection Certificate’ and for permission to sell the said plots which they declared to be agricultural. Therefore, on 11th February 1981 the competent Authority, Alipore Sadar had Issued Memo dated 11th February, 1981 informing the petitioners that he had formed the opinion under s 6(2) of the said Act of 1976 that the said plots were vacant land, and the Competent Authority had called upon the petitioners to file statements in Form I proscribed under s 6(1) of the said Act. Before issuing the said Memo dated 11th February, 1981 the Competent Authority had purported to hold through the Assistant Urban Land Ceiling Officer ex parte local enquiries about the nature and character of the said plots of lands. Before issuing the said Memo dated 11th February, 1981 the Competent Authority had purported to hold through the Assistant Urban Land Ceiling Officer ex parte local enquiries about the nature and character of the said plots of lands. On 19th March, 1981 a fresh local enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioners and a report was drawn up. The Competent authority maintained its view that, prima facie, the plots were vacant lands and insisted that the petitioners must file statement, in Form-I. As already stated, against the said decision of the Competent Authority the appellants preferred an appeal under s 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 4. There is no substance in the submission of Mr. Ranjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Competent Authority had no power to hold any enquiry as to whether or not on the appointed day the petitioners owned and possessed vacant lands in excess of the ceiling. Before forming his opinion, notices ought to be issued under s. 6(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act upon the petitioners. The Competent Authority could hold an enquiry as to whether, prima facie, the plots were vacant lands. According to the petitioners themselves, they intended to transfer to third parties the lands which they claimed to be agricultural lands and tanks not therefore vacant lands. The intending purchases had insisted that the petitioners must obtain from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act ‘No Objection Certificate’ to transfer the said lands. A Lawyer on behalf of the petitioners had addressed letters to the Competent Authority with request to issue such ‘No Objection Certificate’. Therefore, the Competent Authority was entitled to hold enquiry before deciding whether such ‘No Objection Certificate’ ought to be granted. 5. In support of his submission that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to hold any enquiry for forming his opinion was to whether the plots in question were vacant lands. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon s. 35 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 read with three circulars dated 7th January, 1977, 19th May, 1977 and 16th November, 1979 issued by the Government of West Bengal Land Utilisation and Reforms and Land Revenue Department, Urban Land Ceiling Branch. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon s. 35 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 read with three circulars dated 7th January, 1977, 19th May, 1977 and 16th November, 1979 issued by the Government of West Bengal Land Utilisation and Reforms and Land Revenue Department, Urban Land Ceiling Branch. The State Government under s 35 of the said Act has been given power to issue such orders or directions of a general character as it may consider necessary in respect of matter relating to the powers and duties of the Competent Authority and thereupon the Competent Authority shall give effect to such orders or directions. The three State Government circulars dated 7th January, 1977, 19th May, 1977 and 16th November, 1979 did not forbid the Competent Authority from exercising its powers under s. 6(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Our attention has not been drawn to any other order or direction to the Competent Authority prohibiting holding of enquiry as to whether a particular land was a vacant one within the meaning of the said Act. The State Government by an administrative order override the provisions of s 6(2) of the said Act. In fact the State Government did not at all purport to do so. The said three circulars were on the subject of production of certificate from the Competent Authority prior to the registration of transfer of agricultural lands situated within the Urban Agglomeration and its perepheral areas. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the question whether a Sub Registrar could have lawfully insisted upon the production of certificates from the Competent Authority prior to allowing registration of transfer deeds of agricultural lands. We have already indicated that the intending transferees of the petitioners had called upon the petitioners to produce such certificates from the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the petitioners themselves had applied to the competent Authority. Therefore, the circulars are not relevant for adjudicating the validity of the enquiries held for formation of the opinion whether the plots in question were vacant land and therefore were subject to the ceiling laid down by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 6. One of the grievances of the petitioners was that the first enquiry by the Competent Authority was held ex-parte. 6. One of the grievances of the petitioners was that the first enquiry by the Competent Authority was held ex-parte. But the same was no longer relevant, because, after on behalf of the petitioners letters were written to the competent authority challenging the said ex parte enquiry, the said authority held fresh enquiry with notice to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said enquiry, the petitioner preferred an appeal under s 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1970. As already stated, the Special Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal as the appellate authority under s 33 of the said Act dismissed the laid said appeal. Therefore, at present the only question is whether the appellate authority has thereby committed any error of jurisdiction and whether the said order of the appellate authority ought to be quashed and/or set aside. 7. The appellate authority has held that Plot Nos. 1930 and 1940 although recorded as doba should be treated as vacant lands. The decision of the Division Bench consisting of M.M. Dutt and Ajit Kumar Sarkar, JJ. in the case of Sm. Srila Moitra v. State of West Bengal and others AIR 1981 Cal 126 , is binding upon ourselves and also upon the respondents including the appellate authority under s 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 The appellate authority ought not to have, in effect, declined to apply the ratio of the decision in Sm Srila Moitra's case (supra), on the ground that an appeal against the said decision was pending in the Supreme Court. Therefore we hold that the appellate authority committed an error of jurisdiction by holding that a tank was a vacant land and was subject to calling limit laid down by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 8. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that entries as to classification of the plots made in the Revisional Record of Rights have presumption of correctness attaching to them. Such presumption has forward effect. Therefore the burden of rebutting the presumption of the correctness of entries would be always upon the person who challenges the said entries in the record. The ‘appointed day’ under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was February 17, 1976. Such presumption has forward effect. Therefore the burden of rebutting the presumption of the correctness of entries would be always upon the person who challenges the said entries in the record. The ‘appointed day’ under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was February 17, 1976. The instant enquiry under s. 6(2) of the said Act was held nearly 5 years after the said appointed day and the authorities ought to consider that the presumption of the correctness of the entries in respect of the disputed plots of land were in favour of the petitioners and whether the same stood rebutted. While disposing of the appeal the appellate authority did not record its own finding as to whether Plots Nos. 1934 and 1939 were vacant lands or not. The appellate authority mentioned that the enquiry report indicated existence of 10/11 mango, jamrul etc trees on plot no. 1939 and proceeded to make the following observations : "When such trees are planted, there is little likelihood of evidence of recording those trees with some positive purpose being visible on the land itself. Such plot of land may not admit of any other use with the existing trees thereon". 9. It is not intelligible what precisely was indicated to be conveyed by the aforesaid observations. Instead of leaving to the competent Authority the decision regarding plot No. 1939 the appellate authority itself ought to have come to a clear finding as to whether provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would be applicable to said plot of land. The Appellate Authority has held the entire plot no 1923 measuring 44 decimals as vacant land. Only on the ground that in a portion of the said plot there was a dwelling unit measuring 27’x 33’. But he did not at all consider the first and second proviso to explanation (B) under definition or 'urban land' given in clause (o) of s. 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 10. During the pendency of this cases the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1980 having received the assent of the President of India has come into force. Without elaboration, we may observe that the said amendment made in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act have effected far reaching changes inter alia, regarding classification of agricultural lands. The amendment have been given retrospective effect. Without elaboration, we may observe that the said amendment made in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act have effected far reaching changes inter alia, regarding classification of agricultural lands. The amendment have been given retrospective effect. Therefore, while rehearing the appeal, the appellate authority may consider whether or not a retrospective amendment of the definition of 'land' given in s 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would have any impact upon the question whether the plots claimed by the petitioners arc agricultural lands or not for the purposes of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. We ourselves express no opinion on the said plot as also the other points involved in the appeal save and except as to whether the tanks are to be treated as vacant lands. In deciding the question the appellate authority will give effect to the Division Bench decision in the case of Sm. Srila Moitra v. Government of West Bengal and others (supra). 11. We accordingly make these rules absolute, quash and set aside the decision dated 27th November, 1981 of the Special Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department and the Appellate Authority of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in Appeal Case No. 5 of 1961. We command that said Appellate Authority to again dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Susanta Chatterji, J : I agree. Rule made absolute; sent back for re-hearing of the appeal.