JUDGMENT Satya Brata Sinha, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1988 passed by learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of with certain directions. 2. The writ petitioner/Appellant is one of the deities created under an Arpannama dated 11.8.47 by one Lakshmi Narayan Sarengi, since deceased. The entire income of the said endowed property is said to be spent for religious purposes. The deity was recorded as a tenant upon vesting of the said property in terms of the provisions of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. However, a composite notice was issued in terms of s. 14-T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The contention raised by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Trial Judge as also before this Bench was that as by reason of the aforementioned Arpannama, the grantor endowed his property in favour of the petitioner as also the other deities who had been arranged as respondent Nos. 6 to 14 to the writ application, a composite notice is bad in law as each deity is a separate juristic person and thus, was entitled to separate notices. The learned Trial Judge disposed of the said writ application inter alia upon given a direction to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Revenue officer. 3. Mr. Samanta Id. counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that deities have been held to be tenant in terms of provisions of s. 6(1)(i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the composite notice impugned in the writ application must be held wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Id. Counsel submits that the Id. Trial Judge committed an illegality in not deciding the said issue. 4. In support of the aforementioned contentions learned Counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1981 (1) CHN 178 and 1984 (1) CHN 104 . 5. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the question as to whether each deity would be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reform Act will depend upon the question as to whether each deity is in separate enjoyment and possession of specified properties or not. 6. 6. Reliance in this connection may be made to Sree Sree Sridhar Jew & Ors. vs. State & Ors. reported in 1981 (1) CLJ 335 . 7. According to the learned Counsel the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has an overriding effect over other laws for the time being in force in view of the provisions contained in s. 14(J) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. a. It was further submitted that element of public benefit has also to be proved by the petitioner in the said proceedings and in support of the said contentions the learned counsel relied upon the decision of Shri Shri Iswar Raj Rajeswari Jew Thakur vs. State & Ors. reported in 1977(2) CLJ 173. It was further submitted that chapter 20 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has been held to be intra vires by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 82 CWN 118 : 1977(1) CLJ 387 . 9. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties we are of the opinion that as a proceedings under s. 14T(5) .of West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not new proceedings and as such the proceedings has to be initiated in terms of Rules 107(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, and thus the Revenue Officer has the requisite jurisdiction to issue the said notices. The question as to whether each deity was entitled to separate notice and thus was entitled to allotment of separate unit for the purpose of the determination of ceiling area will depend upon the intention of original doner vis-a-vis the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case attending thereto. For the said purpose, an enquiry in terms of s. 14T(6) of the said Act was required to be initiated which has not been done in the instant case. It further goes without saying that in the event the result of such an enquiry goes against the petitioner, an appeal there against is maintainable in terms of s. 14T(7) of the said Act. It is true that in terms of the provisions of the Act, the concerned Raiyats are required to file return in terms of s. 14T(7) of the said Act. In the instant case it is admitted that returns have been filed. 10. It is true that in terms of the provisions of the Act, the concerned Raiyats are required to file return in terms of s. 14T(7) of the said Act. In the instant case it is admitted that returns have been filed. 10. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Land Revenue Officer should proceed to hold the enquiry in terms of s. 14T(6) of the said Act. For the views, we have taken, it is not necessary for us to advert to the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsels before us. 11. We are, thus, in concurrence that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge directing the Revenue Officer to initiate the proceedings in terms of s. 14T(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and further directs that in the event the said decision is rendered against the petitioner, the same may not be given effect for a period of 30 days so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. We have no doubt that the petitioner shall render all co-operations in the smooth conduct of the enquiry proceedings. We have also no doubt that after an appropriate order is passed by the Revenue Officer, the certified copy thereof shall be handed over to the petitioner at an early date. 12. These appeals are therefore, disposed of with the aforementioned directions but without any order as to costs. Satya Narayan Chakraborty, J.: I agree. Appeals disposed of with directions.