JUDGMENT 1. IN this writ petition the adjudication made by the Revenue Officer in a case being Case No. 277 under section 6 (1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act on. 16th April, 1969 is under challenge. 2. IT appears that the petitioner who is an intermediary within the meaning of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act had exercised his option of retention by filing a return in Form 'b' and admittedly he retained 6. 65 acres of agricultural lands. The Revenue Officer in disposing of the said Case No. 277 under section 6 (1) of the said Act by the order dated 16th April, 1969 allowed him to retain 6. 65 acres of agricultural lands and. 22 decimals of non-agricultural lands. The remaining lands, were therefore, directed to be vested. The petitioner has challenged such adjudication after a lapse of 10 years, in 1979 on the ground that although he exercised his choice for 6. 65 acres of agricultural land, the revenue Officer on his own should nave allowed him to retain the remaining 18. 35 acres of lend so as to allow the intermediary to retain 25 acres of agricultural land which is the maximum limit permissible upon the Act. In my view, it cannot be contended by an intermediary that all though himself exercise and option to retain some lands not up to the maximum permissible under the Act for a particular category of land, the concerned Revenue Officer on his own must allow him to retain lands of different categories upto the maximum ceiling prescribed under the Act. Section 6 (1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act indicates that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 4 and 5. an intermediary shall be entitled to retain with effect from the date of vesting different categories of lands to the extent of ceiling indicated under various clauses of section 6 (1. Section 6 (5) however indicates that where an intermediary has failed to exercise his choice, the Revenue. Officer shall after giving him an opportunity of being heard allow him to retain so much of lands as do not exceed the limit of clauses (c), (d)and (j) of section 6 (1. 3. Section 6 (5) however indicates that where an intermediary has failed to exercise his choice, the Revenue. Officer shall after giving him an opportunity of being heard allow him to retain so much of lands as do not exceed the limit of clauses (c), (d)and (j) of section 6 (1. 3. SECTION 6 (5) cannot and does not mean that when a proceeding for retention has been initiated and an intermediary comes forward and exercises his choice clearly indicating various categories of lands he intends to retain, the Revenue Officer is under a legal obligation to force upon the intermediary to retain some more lands to the extent of maximum limit although the intermediary by exercising his option has not intended to retain lands upto the maximum limit for different categories of land. It may be indicated herein that under section 6 (1) an intermediary is entitled to retain tank fisheries without any limit under clause (e) of section 6 (1), but if he does not exercise any choice for such retention and the case is decided by the Revenue Officer under section 6 (5), the Revenue officer on his own cannot allow any tank fishery to be retained by the intermediary because section 6 (5) clearly indicates that in the absence of any choice exercised by an intermediary, the Revenue Officer will allow him to retain so much of the lands as specified in clauses (C), (D)and (J) of section 6 (1. 4. IN my view, section 6 (1) is an enabling section by virtue of which an intermediary can retain different categories of lands to the extent of ceiling prescribed therefore under section 6 (1), on the footing that he is a raiyat under the State. It is quite likely that intermediary may not like to retain different categories of land to the extent of maximum ceiling for different categories of land and he may reasonably feel that since his choice of rentention is limited by the ceiling prescribed for different categories of law, it is not worthwhile to retain limited lands, and it is better to receive compensation for the vested lands and to try for other avocation of life. In my view, when an intermediary exercises his choice by filing a 'b' form return indicating the lands he intends to retain, the Revenue Officer cannot superimpose his choice by giving more lands to be retained by an intermediary against his own choice. Mr. Roy has submitted at the hearing of this matter that if possession of the vested lands has not yet been taken by the State Government and if prior to such possession being taken, an intermediary revises his choice, then the intermediary will be entitled to retain lands to the extent of the ceiling prescribed under section 6 (1) of the Act on the basis of the revised return. From the writ petition it does not appear that any such case has been made out by the writ petitioner and as such the court is not called upon the consider the said contention in the facts on this case. It is also to be noted that the said proceeding which is popularly known as big raiyat case was disposed of in April, 1969 and this writ petition was moved only on the 23rd February, 1979. A bald statement has been made in paragraph 6 of the petition to the effect that after. the order of vesting in the said proceeding, application for review was made, but that application was neither considered nor disposed of. It has not been indicated what sort of review was sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner has also hot annexed the application for review in the writ petition. If the concerned authorities had failed and neglected to consider the alleged review petition, the petitioner ought to have challenged such inaction without undue delay. But, as aforesaid, this writ petition has been presented after about ten years after the adjudication of the said proceeding under section 6 (1. It may be indicated herein that on 12th December, 1978, a notice was issued by the Revenue Officer for determining the family ceiling land under section 14t (1) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act. It appears that only when such notice for determining family ceiling land was issued to the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been presented. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the writ petition as to why the adjudication made in the said proceeding under section 6 (1) about ten years ago was not challenged before this court earlier. It appears that only when such notice for determining family ceiling land was issued to the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been presented. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the writ petition as to why the adjudication made in the said proceeding under section 6 (1) about ten years ago was not challenged before this court earlier. In the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in this writ proceeding a and the Rule is accordingly disposed of. 5. BY way of abundant caution, it is, however, made clear that this Court has not considered the right of the intermediary, namely, the petitioner to able a revised return in view of the fact that no such case has been made out in the writ petition and the said question has, therefore, been kept open. Rules disposed of.