Judgment Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by challenging an order of resumption of the petitioner's land by invoking the provision contained in Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 17.31 acres of land comprised in the factory held by Sodepur Glass Works Limited, at mouza - Sodepur, under police station - Khardah, in the district of North 24 Parganas, was vested with the State free from all encumbrances under Section 5 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The State of West Bengal allowed the said company to retain the said area of 17.31 acres of land being required for factory purpose under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act. Subsequently on enquiry, the State Government found that the said area of 17.31 acres of land was not used for factory purpose and the factory ceased to operate since long. The said area of land measuring about 17.31 acres comprised in the said factory was subsequently transferred to Indo-Asahi Glass Company Limited, which was in possession of the said land. Subsequently, a resumption proceeding was initiated by the State Government as the land was not used for factory purpose. The State Government formed an opinion that since there was no chance of reopening the factory which ceased to operate since long, the said land was no longer required for the purpose of running the factory. In such circumstance, the State Government by invoking its power conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act declared that the area of 17.31 acres of land stands resumed by the Government as being surplus to the requirement of the transferee company for factory purpose. The State Government, thus, held that the transferee company is not entitled to remain in possession of the said land. The Government, thus, decided to take over possession of such surplus land of the said company. Possession notice was also issued on 23rd June, 2005 for taking over possession of the said land of the company by the State Government. Under such circumstances, the instant writ petition was filed challenging the said order of resumption of the petitioner's land, passed by the concerned authority on 16th March, 2005 appearing at page 101 of the paper book. Possession notice was also issued on 23rd June, 2005 for taking over possession of the said land of the company by the State Government. Under such circumstances, the instant writ petition was filed challenging the said order of resumption of the petitioner's land, passed by the concerned authority on 16th March, 2005 appearing at page 101 of the paper book. As a matter of fact, the question which is raised before us in the present writ petition is no longer res integra as an identical question which is raised in this writ petition, was decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 17th January, 2014 while disposing of a writ petition being W.P.L.R.T. 67 of 2013 (Saregama India Limited vs. State of West Bengal). A question came up for consideration before the Division Bench in the said writ petition as to whether the State Government can resort to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act for determining the ceiling limit of a mill, factory or workshop which was not operational on the date of vesting. The said question was decided in the said writ petition in the following manner : "... ... the State Government cannot resort to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 unless a running mill, factory or workshop is found to have existed on the subject land or any activity relating to such mill, factory or workshop was being carried on therein, on the date of vesting. Again requirement of any defunct company and/or any non-existent mill, factory or workshop, as on the date of the vesting cannot be determined by the State Government under Section 6(3) of the said Act. In other words, the requirement of a running mill, factory or workshop as on the date of the vesting can only be determined with reference to the land of any intermediary within the State of West Bengal, on which either the mill, factory or workshop existed or any activity related to such mill, factory or workshop was being carried on, as on the date of vesting. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnagiri (supra), we further hold that once the requirement of such a mill, factory or workshop is determined by the State Government under the main section of Section 6(3) of the said Act, such decision of the State Government cannot be revised by taking resort to the proviso to Section 6(3) of the said Act, unless such determination is subsequently found to have been vitiated by fraud and/or misrepresentation made by the intermediary or for correction of a bona fide mistake on the part of the Government. None of these conditions is satisfied in the instant case, requiring the State Government to review its earlier order of retention. We have no hesitation to hold that the action taken by the State Government in resuming the petitioner's land cannot be held to be valid as such action was taken in total disregard of the petitioner's constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. We, thus, conclude by holding that the concerned authority acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction by invoking its power under section 6(3) of the said Act for determination of the requirement of the said company with regard to the two plots of land being Plot No. 2246 "Danga" & Plot No. 2248 "Danga" measuring about 1.96 acres on which neither any factory existed on the date of vesting nor any factory related activities were carried on therein on the date of vesting. As such that part of the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 20th September, 1999 appearing at page 60 of the writ petition which relates to those two plots of land being Plot No. 2246 "Danga" & Plot No. 2248 "Danga" measuring about 1.96 acres of land stands quashed. Consequently, the subsequent order of resumption of those two plots of land which was passed by the said authority on 17th November, 2004 appearing at page 87 of the writ petition also stands quashed. The impugned notice of possession which was issued by the concerned authority on 8th February, 2005 also thus, stands quashed. Consequently, the subsequent order of resumption of those two plots of land which was passed by the said authority on 17th November, 2004 appearing at page 87 of the writ petition also stands quashed. The impugned notice of possession which was issued by the concerned authority on 8th February, 2005 also thus, stands quashed. The impugned order of the Tribunal passed on 18th February, 2013 in O.A. No. 299 of 2005 (LRTT) for the reasons stated above, stands set aside." Here in the present case we find that the State respondent has failed to produce any material before us to show that the company was operational on the date of vesting and the said land was being used for factory purpose or any factory related activities was being carried on, on the date of vesting. Since in identical set of facts it has already been decided in Saregama's case that the requirement of a defunct or non-operational factory cannot be decided under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, we dispose of the writ petition by holding, interalia, that the impugned order passed by the concerned authority on 16th March, 2005 resuming the land of the petitioner as surplus factory land by invoking the provision under Section 6(3) of the said Act cannot be retained on record, as the State Government failed to establish that the petitioner's factory was in operation on the date of vesting and/or the land in question was being used by the petitioner company for any factory related activity on the date of vesting. Before parting with, we like to mention that transfer of land in dispute by the petitioner's company to another company, during the pendency of this writ, does not disentitle the petitioner company to continue with this writ petition in view of the provision of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure. As such, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Mahato that the petitioner lost his locus to maintain this writ petition as it lost its title in the disputed property due to such pendente lite transfer. The impugned order, thus, stands quashed. Consequently, the possession notice also stands set aside. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.