P. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been moved challenging an order of "review", passed under Section 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1055, when by way of amendment provisions of Section 14t (3a) have not been inserted by the West Bengal Legislature by West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978, (Act XXXIX of 1978 ). ( 2 ) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner had 6. 01 acres of land in irrigated area and 0. 11 acres in non-irrigated area and. 03 acres in orchard recorded in the name of the petitioner. ( 3 ) BEFORE 1969 (i. e. , before the mischief period) 12 acres of land were transferred by the writ petitioner by registered deed and the said transfer has been duly recorded in the name of the transferees as "raiyats" and the said transferees were enjoying the land by paying rent separately. On September 7, 1977, a proceeding under Section 14t (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was started against the writ petitioner and the petitioner filed a return in Form 7a and after hearing the parties, the Revenue Officer by his order, dated 6th October 1977, held that the petitioner had actually transferred 12 acres of land before 1969, and her family consists of one member and she was entitled to retain 6. 01acres of land in irrigated area, 0. 11 acres in non-irrigated area and. 03 acres in orchard and concluded the proceeding as per return and dropped the proceeding. A copy of the said order, dated 6th October 197?, has been annexed to the present writ petition. ( 4 ) ON January 5, 1979, one of the transferees of the petitioner came and informed the writ petitioner that there was a reopening proceeding by the Revenue Officer in respect of the transferred land which was allowed to be retained by the previous Revenue Officer by starting a second suo motu proceeding against the writ petitioner and the petitioner's representative went to the office of the Revenue Officer and came to learn that a notice, being Memo No. 143/bht/78, dated 26-12-78, was issued in the name of the petitioner although the said notice was never received by the writ petitioner. The aforesaid statement has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The aforesaid statement has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is further the case of the writ petitioner that although the prayer for certified copy has been made, no such certified copy has been made available as it was not possible on the part of the Revenue Officer to supply certified copy before distribution of the said land and, accordingly, the writ petitioner by obtaining hand-made copy, moved the writ petition before this Court when R. N. Pyne, J. on January 19, 1979, issued the Rule and granted interim injunction thereby restraining the respondents and their officers, agents and servants from giving any effect to the impugned notices, being Annexures B and C to the writ petition, and also from distributing the lands as mentioned in the petition. Parties were further directed to maintain status quo as on that date regarding possession of the lands in question for a period of two weeks from January 3. 9, 1979. Although this interim order was for a limited period but there was neither any extension nor any prayer for vacation of the interim order and as there is no contrary order passed and no appearance on behalf of the State respondents, it is to be presumed that the said interim order is still continuing till today. ( 6 ) MR. Durgadas Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, submitted that the impugned notice contained in Memo No. 143/bht/78, dated December 26, 1978, purported to be under Section 14t was without jurisdiction, as the law prevalent at the relevant point of time did not confer any power under the said sub-section (3) to the Revenue Officer to review the order passed by his predecessor and, as such, the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate has relied on a single Bench decision of this Court reported in 81 C. W. N. 785, wherein Amiya Kumar Mukherji, J, held that if a return in Form 7a is filed and Order of vesting 'has been passed, the said Order cannot be reopened and/or reviewed. ( 8 ) THE said submission of Mr. Roy, in my estimation, is well. ( 8 ) THE said submission of Mr. Roy, in my estimation, is well. founded, when the West Bengal Legislature has come up with the amendment, being West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978, whereby a specific provision, being sub-section (3a) of Section 14t was to be inserted thereby giving the Revenue Officer power to revise an Order under sub-section (3) and to determine afresh the extent of land which is to vest in the State under Section 14s and to take possession of such land. ( 9 ) FURTHERMORE, under the general conception of law a subsequent Revenue Officer, as in the present case, in my view, having co-ordinate jurisdiction, is incompetent to "reopen" and/ or "revise" the finding of the earlier Revenue Officer for any reasons whatsoever as there is no such provision even after the amendment and insertion of Section 14t (3a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1978, which has been inserted by 1978 Amendment Act, to reopen and/or revise although the amendment has been made for the said purpose, as in my opinion, the 'successor Revenue Officer' is in any event incompetent to revise and/or reopen the order passed by the 'predecessor Revenue Officer' as it has been held by Anil K. Sen, J. in the case of Satya Narayun Banerji vs. A. S. O. and R. O. Bolpur and Ors. since reported in A. I. R. 1975 Calcutta 43. ( 10 ) ON the same point challenging the vires of Section 14t (3a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, writ petitions are pending and this is not subject matter of the present writ petition, and as such, this court at this stage is not called upon to decide the same. ( 11 ) IN the conclusion, the writ petition is entitled to succeed, as there is no return to the Rule and further in view of the aforesaid accepted legal position. ( 12 ) THE Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. ( 13 ) LET a Writ in the nature of Certiorari issue quashing the impugned notices as in Annexures B and C to the writ petition. ( 14 ) BUT this will not, however, prevent the respondents to act and proceed against the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 15 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .