Soumitra Sen ( 1 ) THE Company by the name of K. L. Thirani and Company Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as "the Company" was directed to be wound-up. ( 2 ) PURSUANT thereto the Official Liquidator of this Court took possession of the assets and properties of the Company. In terms of an order dated 3rd december, 1999, the Official Liquidator published a sale notice inviting offers for the assets and properties of the Company as a 'going concern' or on 'as is where is basis'. ( 3 ) THE petitioner gave its offer for purchasing the property, and the company Court took a bid amongst intending offerers and accepted the offer given by the petitioner and confirmed the sale in its favour by an order dated 31st March, 2000. ( 4 ) THE said order clearly records that the Company was sold to the petitioner as a 'going concern' together with all liabilities of the workmen of the Company including the Provident Fund dues. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was also directed to pay the salary of the security guards deployed at the factory premises. ( 6 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to in terms of an order the petitioner duly paid the entire purchase price of Rs. 70 lacs and in addition thereto settled the claim of the workmen of the Company towards outstanding Provident Fund dues and others to the tune of around Rs. 75 lacs. The petitioner also paid the salary of the security guards. ( 7 ) AFTER making payment the petitioner took possession of the property in question and engaged itself in clearing and cleaning operation of the factory premises, which was closed down for a long time in order to restart with its business operations. It is submitted that apart from the payment of the aforesaid sum the petitioner have invested a further sum of Rs. 1. 5 crores to restart the factory. ( 8 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the factory was lying closed for a considerable period of time it required a substantial capital investment and infusion of working capital to effectively make the unit commercially viable. 1. 5 crores to restart the factory. ( 8 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the factory was lying closed for a considerable period of time it required a substantial capital investment and infusion of working capital to effectively make the unit commercially viable. ( 9 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after analyzing the entire situation it transpired that the Company had a lot of surplus lands, which could be effectively used for generating funds. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for mutation by the respondent-Municipality. It also prepared plans for plotting in respect of some portion of the land with the object of submitting and obtaining a sanction plan for carrying out certain constructions upon due approval from the respondent-Municipality. ( 10 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the application for grant of mutation, the concerned Municipality had granted mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said premises being premises Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of B. T. Road, Kolkata-700 035. ( 11 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would appearfrom the map or plan prepared by it that the proposed construction on certain portion of land in question, would not affect the running of the factory in any manner whatsoever. ( 12 ) ON 18th of February, 2002, the prescribed authority served a notice upon the petitioner under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1955 Act") intimating that the petitioner's name has been recorded as owner of the land of the Company including the premises Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of B. T. Road, Kolkata-700 035, having a total area of 5. 6 acres. ( 13 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the land in question is within the ceiling limit prescribed by the 1955 Act and consequently does not fall within the purview of Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1953 Act" ). Therefore, the said notice wrongly mentioned the provision of the said Section 6 (3) of the 1953 act to be applicable to the land in question. Therefore, the said notice wrongly mentioned the provision of the said Section 6 (3) of the 1953 act to be applicable to the land in question. ( 14 ) UNDER Section 203 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, approval of building sites is a necessary pre-condition to the sanctioning of building plans the petitioner accordingly submitted the plotting plans in respect of the land in question. While submitting the plans the petitioner in the covering letter clearly mentioned that the sale of the land in question is required for generating funds for restarting the Company. It was also mentioned that the petitioner has not taken any financial assistance from any banks or any financial institutions and that they do not intend to take any financial assistance since obtaining credit facilities would affect the commercial viability of the unit. ( 15 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the total area of land purchased by the petitioner in the sale conducted by the Company Court is wholly within the limits prescribed by the 1955 Act and therefore, the respondent-Municipality was under an obligation to grant approval to the plan for plotting in respect of the land in question. ( 16 ) THE respondent-Municipality, however, did not grant approval to the plotting plans but asked the petitioner to obtain a "no objection" of the revenue Officer of the Land Reforms Department of the Government of West bengal. Though such "no objection" is not a requirement under the 1953 act, the petitioner applied for such "no objection" on 14th of May, 2002, but the concerned department has not given any reply to the petitioner's request for grant of no objection. ( 17 ) THE respondent-Municipality, however, on 14th of May, 2003, served a notice upon the petitioner that the petitioner's plan could not be sanctioned till the disposal of the proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act stated to have been commenced in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner. ( 17 ) THE respondent-Municipality, however, on 14th of May, 2003, served a notice upon the petitioner that the petitioner's plan could not be sanctioned till the disposal of the proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act stated to have been commenced in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner. ( 18 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that from the said notice they came to know for the first time that on 25th of April, 2003, the concerned block Land and Land Reforms Officer had written to the Chairman of the respondent-Municipality stating that the lands of the Company purchased by the petitioner was within the purview of the Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act and that a letter has been issued to take up the work of reconnaissance survey of the said lands for which no clearance could be issued in favour of the petitioner. ( 19 ) THEREAFTER on 7th January, 2004, after about 8 months the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act, but no such reconnaissance survey was taken up nor the result of any such alleged reconnaissance survey has been served upon the petitioner till date. ( 20 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the land in question do not exceed the ceilling limits prescribed under the 1955 Act none of the provisions of the 1953 Act can have any application in respect of the land in question. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 in particular Section 203, does not contemplate filing of any "no objection" from the Land Reforms Department of the Govt. of West Bengal and therefore, the plans submitted by the petitioner could not be withheld by the respondent-Municipality. ( 21 ) AGAINST the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner filed the writ application, inter alia, challenging the impugned action of the respondent-Municipality in not granting sanction to the plan submitted by the petitioner. ( 22 ) THE instant application has been opposed on behalf of the State respondent being the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by filing an affidavit and also a supplementary affidavit. ( 22 ) THE instant application has been opposed on behalf of the State respondent being the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by filing an affidavit and also a supplementary affidavit. The contention of the contesting respondent is that the land purchased by the petitioner from the Company is in excess of the ceiling limits of the 1953 Act, which applies to the land in question. It is further contended that the land was allowed to be retained by the Company under the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act and therefore, could not be transferred by the Official Liquidator without the express permission of the State authorities. ( 23 ) THE contesting respondents contended that as the land comes within the purview of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act, the sale of the said land without the permission of the State authorities is void and no approval of the building plan and the said plan can be granted and approved under Section 203 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 without the expressed permission of the State authorities. ( 24 ) IT is further contended that the application is not maintainable in view of the fact that this proceeding relates to the provisions of Section 6 (3)of the 1953 Act. Therefore, the petitioner is required to approach the West bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal for adjudication of issues involved herein. ( 25 ) IT is further contended that upon the due publication of notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act and by reason of operation of Section 5 of the said Act the estates and the rights of intermediaries in the estates have vested in the State free for all encumbrances. Therefore, the land as such had vested in the State long ago by virtue of Section 10 (1) of the said 1953 act. The Respondent No. 1 had more or less adopted the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and in addition thereto had contended by filing an affidavit that the Company had filed a statement under section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, with a prayer for exemption of excess vacant land beyond the ceiling limits under section 20 (1) (a) of the said Act of 1976, which matter is still pending. Therefore, until the disposal of the case under Section 10 (1) no transfer of such land can take place. ( 26 ) THE question which comes for consideration here as to whether the relevant provisions of the 1955 Act would have an overriding effect over the provisions of the 1953 Act. It is contended on behalf of the State respondent that the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act is an independent provision and has to be applied without reading into it in other provision of any other law and therefore, the provision of Section 14z of the 1955 Act after introduction of Chapter-IIB of the said Act does not automatically repeal the provision of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act. ( 27 ) CHAPTER-IIB of the 1955 Act deals with the ceiling limits of holding, section 14j of the said Act provides that Chapter-IIB shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in custom, usage or contract or in any agreement, decree, order, decision or award of any Court, Tribunal or other authority. The exception provided under the said section is in respect of any vacant land in an urban agglomeration defined in Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, It, therefore, appears that the provision of Chapter-IIB of the 1955 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything any contrary provision contained in the 1953 Act. ( 28 ) AFTER analyzing the ceiling limits provided in the 1955 Act and after looking into the provisions of Sections 14q, 14l and 14m of the said Act it appears to me that the land of the Company measuring 5. 60 hectares is well within the ceiling limits prescribed under Section 14l and 14m of the 1955 act. Therefore, the provision of Section 14s of the 1955 Act which provides for vesting of land owned by raiyat in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him does not apply in the instant case. 60 hectares is well within the ceiling limits prescribed under Section 14l and 14m of the 1955 act. Therefore, the provision of Section 14s of the 1955 Act which provides for vesting of land owned by raiyat in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him does not apply in the instant case. ( 29 ) FOR the sake of convenience of Section 14z of the 1955 Act is set out as under:-" (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, custom or usage or any decree, judgment, decision or award of any Court, Tribunal or authority the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all lands of all classes and descriptions defined in Clause (7) of Section 2 ; (2) In case of land comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory or workshoop or land used for the purpose of livestock breading, poultry farming or dairy, the raiyat, or where the land is held under a lease, may be allowed to retain (in excess of the prescribed ceiling) only so much of such land as, in the opinion of the State Government, is required for the purpose of the tea garden, mill, factory, workshop, livestock, breading, poultry farming or dairy, as the case may be : provided that the State Government may, if it thinks fit so to do, after reviewing the circumstances of the case and after giving the raiyat or the lessee, as the case may be, an opportunity of being heard, revise any order made by it under this clause specifying the land which the raiyat or lessee shall be entitled to retain for tea garden, mill, factory, workshop, livestock, breading, poultry framing or dairy, as the case may be. Provided further that in determining the land required for the purpose of tea cultivation, there shall not be any diminution of the area of a tea garden. Explanation-The expression "land under a lease" includes any land directly under the State Government under a lease. " ( 30 ) THE provision of 14z was introduced in the Act of 1955 by the west Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 with retrospective effect. Accordingly, with effect from 7th of August, 1969, the provision of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act has been rendered redundant. " ( 30 ) THE provision of 14z was introduced in the Act of 1955 by the west Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 with retrospective effect. Accordingly, with effect from 7th of August, 1969, the provision of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act has been rendered redundant. By reason of the provision of Section 14z, which was introduced subsequent to the 1953 Act by way of amendment there was no other contrary law for determination which can deprive a raiyat of his land within the prescribed ceiling, as superfluous except as it determined by the State under Section 14z. ( 31 ) IT further appears to me that by reason of introduction of Section 3a of the 1955 Act the land in question vested in the State and the Company being in khas possession at the material point of time, became a raiyat under the State and accordingly its interest in the lands in question became heritable and transferable under Section 4 of the said Act of 1955. Therefore, it appears to me that Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act can have no manner of application in the instant case. ( 32 ) ANOTHER fact, which is required to be borne in mind, is that to deprive the petitioner of its right in respect of the land in question at this stage would be extremely inequitable and unjust. After the Company went into liquidation the Official Liquidator took possession of the property in question. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the assets and properties of the Company, which had gone into liquidation, was put up for sale pursuant to a public notice. At that stage neither the Company Court nor the intending purchasers were put to notice about any proceedings initiated under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act. The properties and assets of the Company in liquidation) are sold for beneficial winding up. The money received from sale of the properties and assets of the company (in liquidation) is utilised towards meeting of the liabilities of the said Company as well as for paying of its creditors including secured creditors, if any. ( 33 ) IN the instant case, apart from paying the purchase consideration, the petitioner was also required to pay the liabilities of the workers. ( 33 ) IN the instant case, apart from paying the purchase consideration, the petitioner was also required to pay the liabilities of the workers. The obligation to restart the Company is still subsisting and the petitioner is obliged by reason of the orders passed by the Company Court to restart the factory. ( 34 ) UNDER Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, after a winding up order is passed no proceeding can be initiated against the Company without the leave of the Company Court. The object is to protect the Company (in liquidation) from being subjected to various litigations that may take place. Curiously enough even though the Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the Company in question, the State authorities did not even care to inform the Official Liquidator or the Company Court that a proceeding under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act had been initiated and that the land in question cannot be the subject matter of the sale of the properties and assets of the Company (in liquidation ). ( 35 ) IT is an admitted position that the petitioner had paid the dues of the workers which is to tune of about Rs. 75 lacs, which the petitioner cannot recover at this stage. ( 36 ) IT is an established principle of law that no person should suffer any prejudice on account of an act of Court. In the case of Jai Berham v, kedar Nath Marwari reported in AIR 1922 Privy Council 269, it has been, inter alia, observed that one of the first and highest duties of the Court is to take care that the act of the Court does not cause any injury to any of the litigants. The petitioners have relied upon several unreported decisions namely, the decision of Karan Singh Vinayak and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. passed in FMA No. 508 of 1998, the decision of Motor and Machinery manufacturers Ltd. (in liquidation) and in the matter of Champdany Industries ltd. v. Official Liquidator passed in C. P. No. 146 of 1997 and C. P. No. 646 of 1983 and in the case of Ratnagiri Engineering Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of west Bengal and Ors. passed in W. P. L. R. T. No. 1189 of 2002. v. Official Liquidator passed in C. P. No. 146 of 1997 and C. P. No. 646 of 1983 and in the case of Ratnagiri Engineering Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of west Bengal and Ors. passed in W. P. L. R. T. No. 1189 of 2002. All the decisions have held that after introduction of 14z of the 1955 Act, which has been given retrospective effect from 1969, the exercise of power under the provision of section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act has no application in such cases. The decisions have held that the order issued under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act is misconceived. In fact it has been clearly held that the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act has been replaced by the provision of Section 14z of the 1955 Act with retrospective effect commencing from 1969. Therefore, exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act is wrongful. ( 37 ) IT appears to me that the view expressed by the learned Single judge in the case of Mottor and Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. (supra) has been accepted by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. ( 38 ) IT, therefore, appears to me that as far as this Court is concerned as on date, the settled position of law is that the provision of Section 14z of the 1955 Act has an overriding effect over the 1953 Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act in far as mill land is concerned has no application and any order issued or any proceeding initiated under the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1953 Act is de hors the Act and cannot be the subject matter of adjudication by the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms tenancy Tribunal. The issue having been already settled by the various division Benches of this Court cannot be reagitated and reopened by the tribunal. It is not in "dispute that the land in question is comprised of agricultural or sali land and karkhana land that is factory land and therefore, comes within the purview of the 1955 Act. The issue having been already settled by the various division Benches of this Court cannot be reagitated and reopened by the tribunal. It is not in "dispute that the land in question is comprised of agricultural or sali land and karkhana land that is factory land and therefore, comes within the purview of the 1955 Act. ( 39 ) IT further appears to me that the manner in which the respondent authorities are proceeding would cause serious loss and prejudice to litigants who purchase land and/or property from sale conducted by the Company court in exercise of power by the Companies Act, 1956. ( 40 ) AFTER having allowed the petitioner to part with huge sums of money not only towards payment of purchase consideration but also towards meeting the liabilities of the workers, it will be unjust and inequitable to contend at this stage that the petitioner is unable to exercise its right as a lawful owner of the property in question. If the petitioner violates any of the obligations cast upon it in terms of the orders passed by the Company Court, it would be open to the Company Court to take appropriate steps against the petitioner. But, however, the respondent-authorities are not entitled to contend that the land had vested in the State under the 1953 Act and the petitioner has no right to utilise the land in question. If the respondent-authorities are entitled to raise the contention as raised herein, it would seriously effect the right of the Company Court to put up assets and properties of the Company (in liquidation) for sale. ( 41 ) FOR the reasons as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the contention of the respondents that the land in question has vested in the State in accordance with the provisions of 1953 Act is misconceived. The writ petition is thus allowed. The respondent-Municipality being the Respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the petitioners' application for sanction in accordance with law without taking into account the objection raised by the State respondent within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the communication of this judgment. This application is thus disposed of and no order as to costs. Later- All parties concerned are to act on a minutes of the signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking.