ORDER In this writ application the short point of law has been raised. The writ petitioners have contended that powers under s. 14T(3A) confers on the Revenue Officer power to revise an order made under sub-s (3) of the said section only once. He cannot exercise the power at any time he likes. 2. The facts disclosed in the writ petition in short is that on 30.9.77 a proceeding under s 14T & 14M of the WBLR Act was started by the Revenue Officer against the father of the petitioners, Abdul Mazid Mallick. The said proceeding was numbered 7A suo moto case no. Indus 39 of 1977. It was dropped on 13.10.77, as it was found that their father held land below the ceiling limit Annexure A to the writ application is a copy of the said order. On 15.12.82 the Revenue Officer started a case in exercise of powers under s 14T(3A) for review of the order passed earlier. After considering the materials on record the Revenue Officer on 12.4.83 held that the raiyats family consisting of 2 members wag entitled to retain the land measuring 12.36 acres but the raiyat possessed land much below the ceiling in the said proceeding the Revenue Officer found that the said Abdul Mazid Mallik transferred some lands on 22.4.66 in favour of his sons and the Revenue Officer held that the said transfer was much prior to the date on which the provisions of Chapter IIB of the Land Reforms Act came into force. Accordingly, he held that the review case was not maintainable. That on 1.3.86 the writ petitioners received a notice said to be under s 14T(3). The said notice is annexure ‘C’ to the writ petition. It appears from the said notice that the Revenue Officer was satisfied from the records that the writ petitioners were minors on 15.2.71 and their sister was married subsequent to that date and accordingly they were members of the family of Abdul Mazid Mallik on the relevant date. Accordingly, be proposed to further review of the order paned by the Revenue Officer; 3. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that s 14T(3) does not lay down a provision empowering the Revenue Officer to review an order under s 14T(3) as many times as he likes. Accordingly, be proposed to further review of the order paned by the Revenue Officer; 3. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that s 14T(3) does not lay down a provision empowering the Revenue Officer to review an order under s 14T(3) as many times as he likes. Section 14T(3A) runs thus "The Revenue Officer may of his own motion and after giving the raiyat an opportunity of being heard, revise an order made under sub s (3) and determine afresh the extent of land which is to vest in the State under s 14S and take possession of such land". On a plain reading of this subsection it appears that the power has been given to the Revenue Officer to revise an order made under sub s (3) on his own motion after giving the raiyat an opportunity of being heard. The power of review relates to an order made under sub s (3), In this case it is clear that an order under sub s (3) was made and reviewed. Thereafter again the Revenue Officer wanted to further review an order passed in review under s. 3A. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this is not permissible under the provisions of law Mrs. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the object of the act was to impose ceiling on all the raiyats so that land may be available for distribution to the poor agricultural labourers. If by mistake an order has been made and subsequently it was found that there was no good basis for such an order, looking at the object of the Act, review of such an order should be allowed. She further submitted that to this case in the impugned notice the Revenue Officer has given out good grounds for which he wanted to review this case. Under such circumstances this court should not intervene and hold that Revenue Officer has such power of review as and when there are sufficient materials before him. Considering the submission made by the respective parties it appears to me that the powers of review was given to the Revenue Officer by sub-s. (3A) only. In 81 CWN 785 it was held that the Revenue Officer has no power to review an order already passed, thereafter s. 3A was incorporated in s 14T. Considering the submission made by the respective parties it appears to me that the powers of review was given to the Revenue Officer by sub-s. (3A) only. In 81 CWN 785 it was held that the Revenue Officer has no power to review an order already passed, thereafter s. 3A was incorporated in s 14T. Therefore, it is apparent that the Revenue Officer has no inherent power to review an order made by him. His powers are specifically given to him by the legislation. There is no scope of construing the power given by a specific provisions of law liberally. To me it is very clear that power to revise an order under sub. s (3) has been given to the Revenue Officer. If once such power is exercised and an order made under sub. s (3) is reviewed be cannot again further review an order passed under s. 3A. This is for the simple reason that power of review of an order under sub s (3) has been given but not a power to further review an order passed under sub-s (3A). Accordingly, I hold that the Revenue Officer erred in law in exercising powers under s 3A for the second time. 4. Mr. Ghosh also urged that powers under sub-s. (3A) cannot be exercised by the Revenue Officer at any time he likes. Proceedings under sub-s (3) was started on 30.7.77. It was reviewed on 12.4.84 and again this being sought to be further reviewed as is indicated in the notice annexure ‘C’. Mr. Ghosh has relied on a decision reported in 1981(2) CLJ 451 (Satish Chandra Burman v. State of West Bengal). The Court held that “it is true that following the sequence of event as under WBLR Act the authority concerned would have the right and jurisdiction to determine afresh in some given and appropriate case but if such power is not circumscribed by any period of limitation the use of the power and the exercise of jurisdiction may create great prejudice and hardship to the matters and cases which have reached or would reach finality". In the said decision, the court did not decide that there is any limitation in exercise of powers under s 3A of s 14T of the WBLR Act. It only decided that if such a case has reached finality powers under s 3A cannot be exercised Mrs. In the said decision, the court did not decide that there is any limitation in exercise of powers under s 3A of s 14T of the WBLR Act. It only decided that if such a case has reached finality powers under s 3A cannot be exercised Mrs. Gupta submitted that since the power can only be exercised suo moto by a Revenue Officer provisions of Limitation Act are not attracted. In support she has relied on AIR 1916 Cal. 231. In the said case, the court held that in case where the law provides that the court itself has to proceed in a manner as laid down in the law, the provisions of Limitation Act is not attracted. In cases there is any action to be taken by the court depends on an application to be filed by the party only in such cases the provisions of Limitation Act is attracted. In this case I need not decide the question whether any limitation is attracted to the provisions of sub. s (3A) of s 14T of the WBLR Act. As a result of what has been stated above, this application succeeds and the impugned notice annexure ‘C’ to the writ application is quashed. This application stands disposed of with directions as above. Application allowed notice quashed. Question of limitation not decreed.