ORDER This writ petition, which was moved as far back on March 22, 1978, was kept pending before this court for about nine years, is being disposed of today, even in the absence of the State Advocate, although an affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the Special Revenue Officer, Grade-II on September 6, 1978, dealing with some factual statements made in the instant writ petition, which I shall deal hereinafter. The facts of this writ petition are not disputed. 2 In the said affidavit-in-opposition no new fact has been stated except the fact which are borne by records of 5A proceeding and the consequent appellate orders and the present reopening proceeding by the Revenue Officer, as such, the said affidavit-in-opposition, in my opinion, has no informative value for the purpose of disposal of this petition. 3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that one Ram Kinkar Roy (since deceased), dedicated certain properties to his ancestral deities, Sri Sri Balaram Jew, Sree Sree Kanal Jew and Sri Sri Narugopal Jew and the income of the said properties were meant to be “exclusively” used for seva-puja of the said deities. The said Ram Kinkar Roy also executed a “Will” on August 4, 1950, corresponding to Sraban 1357 B. S. before his death. The said Will provided that in the event he is not being able to execute. Arpannama, his sons, namely, Ram Prasanna Roy, Radhika Prasanna Roy, Pinaki Ranjan Roy, Arun Kumar Roy and Sitangshu Kumar Roy were directed to execute the same and so on and so forth and be had appointed himself as “the first Shebait” of the said deities Ram Prasanna Roy and his five other brothers in token of reverence of the last desire of their father executed three Arpannamas on July 13, 1954, corresponding to Asar 1361 B.S. in favour of the said three deities dedicating the properties, which were “absolutely debuttar” in nature and registered the said documents on or about August 30, 1954. 4 The said debuttar properties were recorded duly in the names of the deities, in the Revisional Record of Rights, which were finally published in the year 1967. Subsequently, 5A enquiry proceeding was started under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in Case Nos 1, 2 and 3 of Mouza Sreepur. 4 The said debuttar properties were recorded duly in the names of the deities, in the Revisional Record of Rights, which were finally published in the year 1967. Subsequently, 5A enquiry proceeding was started under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in Case Nos 1, 2 and 3 of Mouza Sreepur. J.L. No. 103, P.S. Kharba, District Malda, by the Revenue Officer; Chanchal Settlement Camp (Malda), and after examining the witnesses and perusing the documents and Books of Account, the said Revenue Officer on June 17, 1957, found in all the three cases, there were no mala fide intention behind the transfer and accordingly, the properties were “earmarked” as proved and established long before the mischief date, that is, May 5, 1953, though the endowment could not be given legal support, the Revenue Officer came to the definite finding that the transferor and the transferees have been able to prove that the transfers have been made bona fide and not hit by the mischief period. 5. It is further the case of the present writ petitioners that the Revenue Officer, Chanchal Settlement Camp issued notice on January 21, 1965, upon the Shebait of the deities for holding “an enquiry”, under s. 45A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, for determining the nature and character of the debuttar as envisaged under s. 6(1)(k) and provisio to s. 17 of the said ACI. and on April 19, 1965, in ail the three cases it has been held that the seva puja of the deities food other religious functions were being carried out in the manner as stipulated in the deed of dedication and the diebuttar properties full fill all the conditions, which are required of a true and “absolute debuttar” and the debuttar was entitled to the “benefits” as envisaged under s. 6(1)(f) of the said Act. 6. By the 3rd week of December 1967, the Revenue Officer, Chanchal Settlement Camp (Malda), however, issued notice under s. 47, 6(1), 5A(3)(ii) of the said Act upon the six sons of the deceased Ram Kinkar Roy, the present writ petitioners, to show cause as to why 13 71 acres of land should not be deducted from the ceiling of land according to the order of case Nos.1, 2 and 3 under s. 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and started case nos. 202 to 207 and asked the petitioners to file objection, if any. 7 Thereafter, the six sons filed six separate objections before the said Revenue Officer, Chanchal Settlement Camp, (Malda) on February 14, 1968, and staled, inter alia, that the said notice under s. 47/6(1)/5A(3)(ii) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, was unjust, bad, illegal and no proceeding could be started and/or reviewed on the basis of the said notice, as there was no provision in the Estates Acquisition Act, to reopen such finding by the Revenue Officer. 8. The Revenue Officer, Chanchal Settlement Camp, after bearing six cases, being Nos. 202 to 207 of 1967 and without considering any material evidence offered, had passed the impugned order on or about February 20, 1968 and modified the original order dated December 23, 1967, passed by the earlier Revenue Officer. Against the said order dated February 20, 1968, passed by the Revenue Officer, the petitioners preferred six appeals being nos. 7 to 12 of 1968 and Sri K.N Mukherjee, Special Judge, Malda, who had dismissed the said appeals by judgment and order dated August 10, 1968. 9. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a revisional application before this court and obtained a Rule and injunction from the Division Bench consisting of P.N. Mookerjee and A.N. Chakraborty, JJ (as Their Lordships then were) on August 27, 1968, and by judgment dated May 7, 1969, P.N. Mookerjee, the then Acting Chief Justice sitting with Chittatosh Mookerjee, J (as His Lordship then was) made the said Rules absolute, set aside the Impugned order of the appellate tribunal and directed to arrive at a proper decision on merits and, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. 10. After remand, the Special Judge heard the appeals and again dismissed the same by judgment and order dated September 22, 1970. 11. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it has been categorically asserted by the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners moved the Advocate General West Bengal, along with a copy of the application filed before the Revenue Office, being along respondent no. 11. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it has been categorically asserted by the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners moved the Advocate General West Bengal, along with a copy of the application filed before the Revenue Office, being along respondent no. 3, on February 27, 1978, for giving his “legal opinion” and doing justice in the case and the learned Advocate General after hearing Sitangshu Roy, one of the writ petitioners, and going through the said application and/or representation dated February 27, 1918, gave his opinion in favour of the petitioners and recommended the matter to the Hon'ble Minister, Land and Land Revenue, West Bengal, for allowing the prayer of the petitioners, but when nothing bas been done, the writ petitioners personally met the Revenue Officer on March 1, 1978, and filed application, copy of which has been forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister concerned for granting their relief, when nothing has been done, approached this court as a last resort and obtained this Rule. 12. Mr. Santimoy Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners was very much candid in admitting that the conduct of the writ petitioners in approaching the Hon'ble Minister concerned before coming to this court in fact had disentitled themselves from getting any relief from the highest Court of the land, yet seeks mercy from this court as a lost chance. 13 He submits that although this court is not the court of mercy, but the court of equity, but If there is legal right, the petitioners are entitled to approach this court at the first instance, without moving before the respondents from door to door, from one officer to another, which in my opinion, disentitled the petitioners from obtaining any relief whatsoever. 14. But firstly, since the writ petitioners have a “strong prima facie case” in their favour that the “successor Revenue Officer” has no power and/or jurisdiction “to reopen” the finding of the earlier Revenue Officer, having “concurrent jurisdiction”, the impugned order of reopening and/or review was wholly unwarranted since the very beginning and should be set aside by issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari. 15. 15. Secondly, in my view, as there is no provision for “review” of the order passed under s. 5A(3)(ii) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, pari materia to the provisions of s. 147(3a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which has been inserted by way of legislative amendment, by the West Bengal Legislature in 1978, and as such, in the absence of any such enabling provision a “Successor Officer” in any event is incompetent to exercise such power of review as, such power is not “Inherent” in the Officer 16. In this respect. I may rely on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in the case of Satyanarayan Banerjee & ors. v. Charge Officer and A.S.O Birbhum, Suri & ors reported in AIR 1975 Cal. 43 (1974 CHN(N) 127) where Anil Kumar Sen, J (as His Lordship then was) held that a “successor Revenue Officer” having “concurrent jurisdiction” cannot reopen the finding of the earlier Revenue Office, having concurrent jurisdiction. 17. I, respectfully, agree with that view and hold that the entire move including the reopening and/or vesting of the land by successor Revenue Officer who is sitting over the judgment of the earlier Revenue Officer, in this matter was unwarranted and is accordingly set aside. 18. According it, the orders passed in the impugned case Nos. 202 to 207 of 1967 vesting 1371 acres of land of the writ petitioners are set aside. 19. Respondents are further directed to give the writ petitioners an opportunity to retain their land by filing return in form ‘B’ and to vest the surplus land, which is not debuttar and in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs Rule made absolute; direction given.