ORDER The writ petitioners moved the present writ petition on 3rd September 1985, for the second time challenging the order of vesting of an area about 2.49 acres of agricultural land, which the writ petitioners have purchased after the coming into force of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The writ petitioners are thus commonly known as "post vesting transferees" and they earlier moved a writ petition being C.R. No. 2220(W) of 1976, which was discharged for not filing affidavit because of the death of the original Advocate Mr. Rebati Nath Sarkar, who had died in the year 1977. 2. Facts of the case runs as follows:- 3. The petitioners purchased an area about .96 acres on dag No. 3350 and 1.53 acres on dag No. 3380 khatian No. 1367 in Mouza Amgoria under Police Station Ketugram, District-Burdwan, from one Abhoy Pada Rano (since deceased). In respect of whom a proceeding under s. 14T of WBLR Act was started and the land transferred in favour of the petitioners by sale as far back in the year 1968, was sought to be vested in the State of West Bengal, without serving any notice and/or by giving any information to the writ petitioners. 4. Mr. Falguni Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing in support or the writ petition, submitted in the first place that "rent" having been accepted from the writ petitioners, the petitioners, being subsequent transferees had acquired some sort of "tenancy right" in respect of the land in question, and as such, were entitled to notice of hearing, as the petitioners held the land below the ceiling. 5. In support of this submission, he has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Haque & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & ors reported in AIR 1964 Cal. 183 , wherein it has been held by D.N. Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) that by acceptance of "rental from the writ petitioner, at a certain rental, the petitioner gets a tenancy of some description as once the Government accepts rent from him, the fact that the rent receipt contained the expression "without prejudice to the right and title" makes no difference. 6. 6. In the said judgment, His Lordship further held, as follows : "I cannot see any justification for the Junior Land Reforms Officer to take upon himself the task or either terminating a license granted by Government or giving notice to quit to a tenant. If it was simply an intimation on behalf of the Government that legal proceedings would be taken, that is one thing, but the notice is on the face of it a notice to quit and vacate the lands by the last day of Chaitra 1367 B.S. I have asked Mr. Banerjee to show me any provision in the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or the Rules made thereunder which confers upon the Junior Land Reforms Officer power of issuing such notices. He has confessed that there is no such provision. Therefore, the notice cannot be said to be a mere information that legal action would be taken if the petitioners continued to be in possession. If it is merely that, then the petitioners could have no objection. But they have come to court because the frame of the notice is otherwise." 7. The said view has been followed in a subsequent Single Bench decision of this court although not referred to in the case of Panchu Malla v. Junior Land Reforms Officer, reported in 1981 (1) CHN page 1, wherein G.N. Ray, J., had held that rent having been accepted and names being mutated, raiyat cannot be evicted from the land. 8. Mr. J.N. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents seriously objected about the maintainability of the writ petition after a long delay of seven years. 9. On merit he submitted to the first place that the rents were never collected by the State Government from the writ petitioners but rents wore tendered on behalf of the transferor Abhoy Pada Rano, but through some body, on behalf of the writ petitioners and the writ petitioners names were never mutated and as such, there was no occasion on the part of the Revenue Officer to have the knowledge and Information about such subsequent transfer and accordingly there was no occasion to serve notice. 10. 10. In support of this contention he has referred to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit in opposition, which runs as follows:- "Late Abhoy Pada Rano submitted the 7A Return under s. 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder. Late Abhoypada Rano owned and possessed 23.94 acres of land including the suit lands as on 15.2.1971. At the time of bearing of 14T case bearing No. 21 (BK) on the basis of the 7A return, late Rano did not disclose that he executed an agreement with the petitioners to sell the suit lands and took advance from them i.e. he executed an "unregistered bynanama" with them as alleged in the petition A 'bynapatra' is not a deed of sale which were not shown in the 7A return as lands to be retained by him. As such late Rano was allowed to retain 12.36 acres of land in irrigated area according to his family consisting of four (4) members including the himself and the balance 11.58 acres of land were declared as vested in the State of West Bengal under s. 14S of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The above order of retention and vesting was passed as per 7A return submitted by late Rano. When Abhay Pada Rano died was not mentioned anywhere in the month of Paush 1379 B.S. corresponding to 1973 leaving behind two minor sons and wife. Further it appears that the suit plots of land had duly been surrendered by the deceased raiyat himself by submitting 7A Return on 14.10.1971. In course of hearing the facts of execution of bynanama if any was suppressed by the raiyat. So the suit plots in question were vested in the State as surplus laud of the raiyat under West Bengal Land Reformers Act, 1955." 11. In reply to that objection Mr. Sarkar appearing for the writ petitioners has drawn my attention to the provisions of s. 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which deals with the extent of transferability of holding of a raiyat and effect of registration of any instrument. 12. In reply to that objection Mr. Sarkar appearing for the writ petitioners has drawn my attention to the provisions of s. 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which deals with the extent of transferability of holding of a raiyat and effect of registration of any instrument. 12. In this connection he has referred to a "form", appended as Appendix 'D' to the West Bengal Land Reforms (Transfer of Holding) Rules, 1965 wherein form has been prescribed to give notice for transfer on the prescribed authority and co-sharer raiyats, under s. 5 and according to the writ petitioner, when such notice has been given immediately after purchase of the land as far back In the year 1968 it cannot be suggested on behalf of the respondents that the respondents had no knowledge, actual or constructive, as there was no formal application for mutation in the said behalf on behalf of the writ petitioners. 13 I have gone through the provisions of s. 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which I set out herein-below:- A transfer of the holding of a raiyat or a share or portion thereof shall be made by an instrument which must be registered and the registering officer shall not accept for registration any such instrument unless- (a) the sale price, or where there is no sale price, the value of the holding or portion or shale thereof transferred, is stated therein; and (b) there is tendered along with it, (i) a notice giving the particulars of the transfer in the prescribed form for transmission to the prescribed authority; The said form as appended in Appendix D is also quoted herein-below: FORM (See Rule 3) Notice of transfer for service on the prescribed authority and co-sharer raiyats under s. 5. To The Prescribed Authority/Co-sharer raiyat Take notice of the transfer of the bolding (or the portions or share thereof) specified in the schedule below." 14. To The Prescribed Authority/Co-sharer raiyat Take notice of the transfer of the bolding (or the portions or share thereof) specified in the schedule below." 14. I am of the view that in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 81 CWN 1026 (Provash Chandra Mondal v State of West Bengal) and the principles laid down, although the facts of that case are not the same as in the present case before me as in the said case mutation has been made in favour of the writ petitioner the small area of the land of the writ petitioners in this case cannot be vested with the State without giving any notice to the Writ petitioners. 15. On the point of delay in moving the writ petition, I am of the view that since the writ petition has been admitted by this court by one learned single Judge, and this point of delay having been condoned by the said learned single Judge, it will not be proper on my part to dismiss the writ petition on this point of delay alone, at the time of final disposal, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 (L. Hirday Narain v. I.T. Officer, Bareilly). In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, in dealing with alternative remedy vis-a-vis exercising of discretion at the time of heating of the writ petition it has been held by the Supreme Court that after native remedy could not be a bar when Rule was issued and discretion was exercised at the time of disposal of the writ petition that point should not be taken into consideration along for the purpose of dismissing the writ petition. 16. Accordingly, I reject that contention on behalf of the respondents. 17. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to another single Bench judgment of this court about the effect of registration in the case of State of West Bengal v Nemai Chand Kundu reported in AIR 1978 Calcutta 347; wherein it has been held that in cases where after the dale of execution of transfer but before its registration there are subsequent deeds of transfer to respect of the same property, such documents even if registered earlier than the transfer deed referred to above, will not prevail over such earlier deed which takes effect from its execution. 18. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the impugned order of vesting to the extent of 2.49 acres of agricultural land on the date referred to hereinabove, cannot be sustained in law and is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order for costs. Let a writ in the nature of Certiorari issue and let also a consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents not to give effect or further effect to the Impugned order. Petition allowed.