ORDER 1. No one appears on behalf, of the respondents. This Rule was made ready as regards service as far back as on 8th March 1980. Under the Writ Rules, the respondents are required to file an affidavit in opposition within four weeks from the date of service of the Rule. No affidavit in Opposition has yet been filed. Therefore, the allegations made in the writ application go unchallenged. 2. This writ application is disposed of after hearing Mr. Madan Mohan Mullick, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case by the following order. 3. The writ petition is directed against Case No. 4 of 1978 under S. 10(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1954. The relevant order sheet as contained in Annexure 'H' to the writ application reads thus:- "ORDER SHEET District 24 Paraganas Case No. 4/78-10(1) Sub:-Possession of Vested khas land mouza Gobindapur and Durgapur 23.9.1978 State u/s 10(1) case enter in registered VIII an put upon Collector u/s 10(1) W.B.E.A. Act 1954 Bagdah, 24 Paraganas 28.9.1978 – The case is put up today and the Circle Inspector to take possession lands and put up on 5.10.1978. Collector u/s 10(1) W.B.E.A. Act I (1954 Bagdah 24 Paraganas) 4. Prior to the present writ application, the petitioner moved another writ application before this Court on October 4, 1978. The petitioner challenged the proceeding under S. 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act by a writ application being C.R. No. 1335(W) of 1967. This Court while making the Rule absolute held, the relevant portion of which quoted below for the sake of convenience:- "I am of the view that the entire proceeding taken in this case has been erroneous from the very beginning. Where an intermediary files his option to retain under S. 6 if the authorities do not allow retention as prayed for and take the view that the claim made in the above form is not maintainable in law an adjudication is necessarily called for with notice to the intermediary. In any event, I find no legal support for a proposition that the proceedings under S. 6 could be amalgamated with the attestation proceedings which is meant for the proposition of record of rights. Mr. In any event, I find no legal support for a proposition that the proceedings under S. 6 could be amalgamated with the attestation proceedings which is meant for the proposition of record of rights. Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondents have pointed out that the very same officers who were carrying on the attestation proceedings were authorised in law to dispose of claims under S. 6 of the said Act. But that, in my view did not authorise them to start a composite proceedings and dispose of a matter really to be investigated under S. 6 in such a proceeding. At least the respondents have not satisfied this court that any appropriate notice was ever given to the petitioner that his claim made in the option form will be adjudicated upon. Mere fact that a representative of the petitioner was present in such adjudication proceedings does not make the matter otherwise. In this view there is no other alternative but to set aside the decision taken by the respondents which constitute the basis of notices issued under S. 10(2) of the said Act. And the said decision as also the notices are accordingly set aside by this court by this order. Liberty however, is given to the respondents to proceed with the proceedings or if necessary to initiate a new one under S. 6 of the said Act on the petitioners claim in his 'B' form and adjudicate with proper notice to the petitioner as to what quantum of land he would be entitled to retain under the provisions of S. 6. The respondents would in accordance with the said decision be entitled to amend or rectify the finally published record of rights as admittedly such records have been prepared and published on the basis of a decision which is being set aside by this Court. The Rule succeeds to the extent as above and is made absolute. Let a writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue incorporating the above directions and let a writ in the nature of mandamus also do issue commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned notices under S. 10(2) of the said Act. There will be no order for costs." 5. The claim of the petitioner is that the entire area was a nursery land which was used for production of finished and saleable plants and grafts etc. There will be no order for costs." 5. The claim of the petitioner is that the entire area was a nursery land which was used for production of finished and saleable plants and grafts etc. The affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the State in C.R. No. 1335 (W) of 1967 disclosed that an enquiry was held in December 1957 by the Circle Officer of Mouza Gobindapur and Durgapur, Bongaon under Bagdah P.S. as per the order of the Charge Officer, District 24 paraganas. After the said enquiry the said Circle Officer, Bongaon, submitted his report to the Charge Officer on December 24, 1957 wherein he gave the following different classes of land of the Globe Nursery:- (i) Nursery 187.19 acres (ii) Orchard 1.24 acres (iii) Poultry & Dairy 7.49 acres (iv) Danga 92.69 acres (v) Sali 6.46 acres (vi) Bastu 1.01 acres (vii) Vitti 1.37 acres (viii) Beel 22.47 acres (ix) Other non agricultural lands 18.07 acres. 6. After the delivery of the judgment, the Revenue Officer requested to prepare the record of rights and treat the entire nursery land of the Globe Nursery as retained land under S. 6(1)(g) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to file a fresh return in Form I showing all the lands of the Globe Nursery and also file a fresh return in Form 'B' together with a representation stating that in pursuance of the notice dated 12.5.78 he has already submitted a representation on 26.6.78. For the purpose or determination of the ceiling area, the petitioner furnished the following particulars about the specification of the land:- Nursery 195.47 acres Danga & Sali 52.45 acres Beel/tank fishery 22.89 acres Vitti 1.39 acres Bastu 5.77 acres Dairy & poultry 6.36 acres Non agricultural land 13.52 acres 7. The petitioner claimed that the existing nursery land is not sufficient to fulfill the object of the Globe Nursery and the other land and non agricultural lands have been acquired with the intention to convert the same into nursery land. It was pointed out that the tank and other nonagricultural land have not been converted into full fledged nursery land and as such this could not be shown in column 9 of the 'B' form return. It was pointed out that the tank and other nonagricultural land have not been converted into full fledged nursery land and as such this could not be shown in column 9 of the 'B' form return. The Revenue Officer was requested not to treat the land as vested in the state on the ground that the same is in excess of the ceiling area. Thereafter, the hearing took place and the Revenue Officer did not dispute that the nursery land should be classified under S. 6(1)(g) of the said Act. On September 29, 1978 the matter was placed for orders when the petitioner was told by the Revenue Officer that he treated all the nursery lands of the petitioner shown in column 1 as vested in the State. The petitioner was further told that the Revenue Officer has allowed the petitioner to retain certain lands but no particulars of such lands could be available in the absence of the certified copy of the order. On September 26, 1978 the petitioner went to the office of the respondent no 1 to expedite the supply of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated September 20, 1978. 8. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court on December 16, 1987 Mr. Madan Mohan Mullick learned Advocate for the petitioner was directed to file Supplementary Affidavit annexing the copy of the order whereby the petitioners stands aggrieved. I have examined and considered the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 9. The Globe Nursery is an establishment for raising and handling young plants until they are ready for more permanent planting. The Globe Nursery used to carryon the nursery business for production and distribution of fruit, medicinal, spices and economic plants and grafts, flower plants and grafts and for ornamental and decorative plants through the common markets. The Globe Nursery used to supply improved varieties of plants and grafts throughout India apart from the sale in the local markets. There is hardly any garden in India which missed in planting improved varieties of plants, and grafts of the Globe Nursery. The Globe Nursery consists of fruits, medicinal, species and economic plants and grafts, flower plants and grafts and for ornamental and decorative plants and grafts and has become the pioneer in the nursery industry in this Country. There is hardly any garden in India which missed in planting improved varieties of plants, and grafts of the Globe Nursery. The Globe Nursery consists of fruits, medicinal, species and economic plants and grafts, flower plants and grafts and for ornamental and decorative plants and grafts and has become the pioneer in the nursery industry in this Country. Therefore, the land which is sought to be affected by the impugned proceeding is not liable for being treated as vested as the said Globe Nursery is an industry and the entire matter is to be viewed from the angle of the provisions as contained in West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned order annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit cannot, therefore be sustained inasmuch as the proceeding thus initiated for treating the land as vested is without jurisdiction and is illegal. 10. The writ petition thus succeeds and the Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.