ORDER The short question involved in this case is, as to what should be the time limit within which a proceeding under s. 14T(3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 can be started by the authority concerned for revising an order passed In an earlier proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the aforesaid Act. 2. In the present case, pursuant to the return under s. 7A filed by the writ petitioner wherein he opted to retain 22 15 acres of agricultural land, a proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the aforesaid Act being Case no Bishnupur/86 of 1976 was started and that was finally disposed of by the Revenue Officer concerned vide his Order no 11 dated 16th of September, 1976, holding that the raiyat namely, the petitioner, was entitled to retain 17.30 acres of agricultural lands in non-irrigated areas and the rest of his agricultural lands were to vest with the State as excess lands. Subsequently, however, in the year 1984, the said Revenue Officer issued the impugned notice (Annexure 'B') dated 24th May, 1984 supported to be one under s. 14T(3A) of the aforesaid Act, for revision of the said final order passed in the earlier proceeding under s. 14T(3) of the Act as aforesaid, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present rule. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr., Roy, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, has taken a point that the initiation of the said review and/or revisional proceeding, by issuing the impugned notice (Annexure-'B') about eight years after the final disposal of the earlier 14T(3) proceeding, was barred by limitation and as such cannot be sustained in raw. In support of his said contention, Mr. Roy, has referred to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Satish Chandra Barman vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1981) 2 CLJ 451 wherein identical questi0n arose and it was observed inter alia, by Mr. M.N Roy, J., that such power must be exercised by the authority concerned before the matter or the lis or dispute between the parties had reached its finality or would reach finality. 4. According to Mr. (1981) 2 CLJ 451 wherein identical questi0n arose and it was observed inter alia, by Mr. M.N Roy, J., that such power must be exercised by the authority concerned before the matter or the lis or dispute between the parties had reached its finality or would reach finality. 4. According to Mr. Roy, in the present case, the proceeding under s. 14T(3) as referred to above, in which the final order was passed by the Revenue Officer concerned on 16th November, 1976, had reached its finality after the expiry of time for preferring an appeal against such order under s. 54 read with s. 55 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, i.e., after thirty days from the date of the said final order, since no appeal was preferred against the said orders by any party namely, either by the State or by the writ petitioner. 5. Section 14T was introduced by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 with retrospective effect from 15th February, 1971 and the said Section speaks of the duty of a rayiat to furnish return, proposing to retain lands and its consequences. The relevant provisions of the said s. 14T are quoted below :– “14T. Duty of raiyat to furnish return -- (1) Every raiyat owing land in excess of the ceiling area shall furnish to the Revenue Officer, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, a return containing the full description of the land which he proposes to retain within the ceiling area applicable to him under s. 14M and a full description of the land which is in excess of the ceiling area and such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Where there are more raiyats than one in a family, the return referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be furnished by the head of the family or any other raiyat in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section. (2) Where there are more raiyats than one in a family, the return referred to in sub-s. (1) shall be furnished by the head of the family or any other raiyat in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section. (3) The Revenue Officer may, on receipt of a return submitted under sub-so (1) or sub-so (2); or on his own motion, determine the extent of land which is to vest in the State under S. 14S and take possession of such lands: Provided that where a raiyat has exercised his choice of retention of land within the ceiling area in such a way that portions of more than one plot are to vest in the State, the Revenue Officer may disregard the choice exercised by the raiyat and may, after giving the raiyat an opportunity of being heard, determine the plot or, where necessary, plots of land proposed to be retained by the raiyat from which an area equal to the area of the portions of the plots shown in the return to be in excess of the ceiling area, is to vest in the State and take possession of such land.” (7) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-ss. (3A), (5), or (6) may prefer an appeal under S. 54.” 6. There was no such sub-section as (3A) in the original s. 14T and such sub-section was introduced for the first time in the said S. 14T by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 in the following manner: “The Revenue Officer may, on application being made to him or of his own motion and after giving the raiyat an opportunity of being heard, revise an order made under sub-so (3) and determine afresh the extent of land which is to vest in the State under s. 14S and take possession of such land.” 7. Subsequently, however, the said sub-s. (3A) of the said S. 14T was substituted by a new and/or the present sub-s. (3A) by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978, which runs as follows :– “The Revenue Officer may of his own motion and after giving the raiyat an opportunity of being heard, revise an order made under sub-s. (3) and determine afresh the extent of land which is to vest in the State under s. 14S and take possession of such land : Provided that applications made to the Revenue Officer prior to the commencement of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 shall be disposed of by the Revenue Officer in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section.” 8. The only difference between the old sub-s. (3A) and the substituted new sub-s. (3A) is that under the old sub-s. (3A), the Revenue Officer could revise the order passed under sub-s. (3) of s. 14T either on application being made to him by any person, or of his own motion, but under the present substituted sub-s. (3A), the right to make an application before the Officer for such review and/or revision, has been taken away and/or withdrawn. No period of limitation for revising an order under sub-so (3) of s. 14T was or has been provided, either under the old sub-s. (3A), or under the new or the present sub-s. (3A), and no such limitation has also been prescribed elsewhere in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 9. In Beni Singh v. Barhamdeo Singh, AIR 1916 Cal. 231, it was held inter alia, that in a case, where the law provides that the court itself has to proceed in a manner al laid down in a law, suo motu, then the provisions of Limitation Act are not attracted, and the question of limitation would only arise when any action to be taken by the court depends upon an application to be filed by the party. Limitation Act prescribes period of limitation for filing suits or applications before a court of law. Limitation Act prescribes period of limitation for filing suits or applications before a court of law. Undoubtedly, determination of ceiling limit of a raiyat regarding retention of land under sub-s. (3) of s. 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is not made by any court of law, but by the Revenue Officer who, makes such determination, is certainly a quasi-judicial tribunal, and such determination can be made by such Officer either on receipt of a return submitted by a raiyat under sub. s. (1) of s. 14T, or suo motu. Again, the revision of the determination so made under sub-s. (3) of s. 14T can be made by the Revenue Officer concerned suo motu, under the present sub-s. (3A) to the said S. 14T. Accordingly, it may be argued that when no period of limitation for such suo motu revision is provided either in sub-s. (3A) or in any other provisions of s. 14T. or elsewhere in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, such suo motu revision can be made at any point of time; but it has been held by M. N. Roy, J., in Satish Ch. Barman V. State of West Bengal (supra), that if such suo motu power is not circumscribed by any period of limitation, the use of such power and jurisdiction, may create great prejudice and hardship to matter or cases, which have reached or would reach finality, and that even though there was no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of suo motu power under s 14T(3), the Revenue Officer concerned, cannot claim to have an unlimited power or power without any period of limitation for exercising his suo motu power and such power, must be exercised within a time as specified and in the absence of such specification, before a finality is arrived at, of the lis or dispute or such power of review should be resorted to within such period of limitation as mentioned above, to be reckoned from the date of obtaining the necessary informations, requiring a review. 10. To exercise of such powers under ss. 10. To exercise of such powers under ss. 14(3) and 14T(3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, are certainly and basically different, but in both the case, the powers must be used reasonably or with reasonable or due care and that too by a reasonable man, and exercise of such power, in either of the cases, should not also trench on the powers of the authority concerned, which powers are expressly reserved by the Act or the Rules for other authorities and should not ignore the limitation inherent in the exercise of those powers. 11. It is now to be seen, when an order can be termed to be a final order or when a lis or dispute reaches its finality. The final order is an order, in which there is a final adjudication by a court or tribunal, upon the rights of the parties, who appeared before it. Therefore, unless there is any determination of any right, there is no judgment or final order. A final order is that order which finally puts an end to the proceeding so far as it relates to the declaration asked for. 12. In the present case, the Revenue Officer concerned in the proceeding under s. 14T(3) as mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ to the writ application, determined by his Order no. 11 dated 16th of September, 1976 the quantum of lands to be retained by the writ petitioner under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the said order therefore, can very well be said to be the final order passed in such proceeding An appeal is provided in subs. (7) of s. 14T against final order, and as no such appeal was preferred in the present case, the proceeding ultimately reached its finality with the expiry of the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against such an order as provided under s. 54 read with s. 55 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 13. Judging the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act as well as the decision as referred to above, it can therefore be held that a lis or dispute regarding the question as to the determination of ceiling limits for retention of lands by a raiyat as per the provisions of subs. 13. Judging the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act as well as the decision as referred to above, it can therefore be held that a lis or dispute regarding the question as to the determination of ceiling limits for retention of lands by a raiyat as per the provisions of subs. (3) of S. 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 reaches its finality, when the period for preferring an appeal as provided in sub-so (7) of S. 14T read with Ss. 54 and 55 of the aforesaid Act, against the determination of such ceiling limits by the Revenue Officer concerned expires, where no such appeal is preferred, and where such an appeal is preferred, the moment of appeal is ultimately decided as per the provisions of subs. (4) of s. 54 of the Act. As such the Revenue Officer concerned under S. 14T(3) can suo moto revise an order passed under s. 14T(3) determining the ceiling limits of the lands a raiyat is entitled to retain under the Act, either within thirty days from the date of such determination or before the disposal of the appeal, if preferred against such determination, but not otherwise or not beyond such period. In the present case, therefore, the initiation of the proceeding under s. 14T(3A), by issuing the impugned notice being Annexure 'B' to the writ application having been made long after the aforesaid period of limitation, was thus wholly illegal and not maintainable in law being out of time, and hence the same stands quashed and so also Annexure ‘B’. 14. The Rule is made absolute to the extent as indicated above without any order as to costs. Rule made absolute; impugned notice quashed.