JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. : The question with which this Bench has been called upon to answer in the reference is as to whether the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, applies in a proceeding under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. A learned single Judge of this court by an order dated 17.6.98 passed in C.O. No. 2762 of 1995, C.O. No. 2766 of 1995 and C.O. No. 299 of 1996 noticed that two decisions of this court reported in AIR 1982 Cal 6 (Chandra Sekhar Sarkar vs. Baidyanath Ghosh) and 1997 (1) CLJ 289 (Sm. Karuna Sardar vs. Gopal Sardar), wherein it has been held that section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to such a proceeding being in conflict with a decision of another learned single Judge in Minor Subir Ranjan Mandal vs. Sitanath Mukherjee, reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 106 . 2. It now appears that in view of the aforementioned conflicting decision the matter had been considered in depth by a Division Bench of this court in Serish Maji vs. Nishit Kumar Dolui, reported in 1999 (1) CHN 365 upon a reference having been made in that regard and the Division Bench agreed with the decision of Chatterjee, J, in Minor Subir Ranjan Mandal vs. Sitanath Mukherjee, reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 106 , holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act will has no application to a proceeding under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, inter alia, on the ground that such a proceeding is a suit and not an application within the meaning of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Nobody has appeared before us questioning the correctness or otherwise of the aforementioned Division Bench decision. 4. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to answer the question raised by a learned single Judge of this court in his aforementioned order dated 17.6.98, in view of the fact that subsequent thereto, a Division Bench has already decided the matter. Prima facie, it appears that in some of the matters, even no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, had been filed, and as such, we are of the opinion that in those cases reference was inappropriate. 5. This reference is accordingly disposed of. 6. Prima facie, it appears that in some of the matters, even no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, had been filed, and as such, we are of the opinion that in those cases reference was inappropriate. 5. This reference is accordingly disposed of. 6. The matters be now placed before an appropriate learned single Judge for disposal on merit. M.H.S. Ansari, J.: I agree. Barin Ghsoh, J.: I agree. Reference is accordingly disposed of.