JUDGMENT Basudeva Panigrahi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Asit Baran Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents and also Mr. A.N. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of Mandamus against the respondent No.3 for production of the records of the Case No. 54 of 1997 and also prohibiting him to proceed with the case pending in his file. 3. It has been categorically stated, inter alia, by the writ petitioner that the lands in question are non-agricultural lands for which the respondent No.3 has no legal authority to issue a notice along with an order, being Annexure 'A' to the writ petition calling upon the petitioner to file her return in Form No.7-AA of the Amendment Act of 1981. It has further been submitted that there was a previous ceiling proceeding against the landholder, namely, the writ petitioner wherein she bas submitted her return pursuant to the notice issued by the Assessing Authority, vide Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, on 5.7.1984. Since there has been no communication after the submission of return, it can well be presumed that the writ petitioner did not possess any land beyond the ceiling limit. Therefore, the case must have been dropped. 4. In the meanwhile, it appears that the land owner has transferred some of her lands in favour of the private respondents Nos. 7 to 14. The Revenue Officer again has sent a notice vide Annexure 'A' to the writ petition pursuant to his order dated 5.6.1997 calling upon the writ petitioner to submit her return on 7.7.1997. Therefore, being aggrieved by such notice, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has strongly contended that the Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice, Annexure 'A' particularly after submission of return by the landholder pursuant to the notice, Annexure 'C' to the writ petition Since the Revenue Officer did not take further action after submission of return by the land holder, it should be legally presumed that the land holder might not have any land beyond the ceiling limit Therefore, the second notice issued by the Revenue Officer is not justifiably tenable in law. Thus, the writ petitioner need not comply with the direction issued by the Revenue Officer. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing for the private respondents purchasers, has submitted that since his clients have purchased the lands which were within the ceiling limit of the land holder such question cannot be re-agitated and it would be prejudicial against his clients. Therefore, he wanted to file an affidavit-in-opposition. 7. Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal, has submitted that the land owner bas not filed an, final order pursuant to the submission of return, Annexure' A' to the writ petition. Therefore, it is quite likely that either the same proceeding is still pending or the Revenue Officer can ask the land owner to submit a fresh return after the amendment of the Lend Reforms Act in Form No. 7-AA of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In case, it is determined that the land owner did not possess the land beyond the ceiling area, obviously, whereby it cannot be questioned in transferring the land in favour of the private respondents. On the other hand, if it is held that she is a ceiling surplus land holder, she could not have transferred those lands in favour of the private respondents contrary to the provision of Section 14P of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing in the case at length and on perusal of the record, I find the writ petitioner was served with a notice for submission of return who in turn of such notice submitted the said return ever since on 5.7.1984. Either party could not produce any record regarding the final order which has been passed after the return was filed by the writ petitioner. In case it is held that the petitioner has no land beyond the ceiling limit, her right to transfer the land cannot be questioned by the State as well as its officials. If the writ petitioner is held to be possessed land more than the ceiling limit she could not have transferred such land after Chapter II-B came into force. The Revenue Officer after amendment of the Act can certainly ask to submit return pursuant to Section 14 T(3) and 14 (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. If the writ petitioner is held to be possessed land more than the ceiling limit she could not have transferred such land after Chapter II-B came into force. The Revenue Officer after amendment of the Act can certainly ask to submit return pursuant to Section 14 T(3) and 14 (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Therefore, there is no wrong committed by the Revenue Officer in asking the landholder for submission of her return. Accordingly, I direct the writ petitioner to submit the return and indicate whether she possessed still any land beyond the ceiling limit. In case it is held that she did not possess any land beyond the ceiling limit, the proceeding shall be dropped. 9. While determining the case the Court should bear in mind about the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti & other vs. State of West Bengal & other, 1996 (2) Cal LJ 285. The private respondents can also file representations regarding their right since they have purchased the lands from the writ petitioner. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner that return has already been filed pursuant to the notice dated 19.6.1997. If return has already been filed pursuant to the notice, the matter should be enquired into in the light of the above discussions and also keeping in view the Division Bench decision of this Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents. 10. Let a copy of the writ petition be filed before the respondent No.3 which shall be treated as a representation and the same be disposed of in the guidelines laid down in the judgment. Till the representation which would be filed by the writ petitioner is not disposed of, further proceeding in the ceiling case shall be stayed. 11. With the above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances without costs. Let a plain copy of the operative part of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties for onward communication.