JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. State of West Bengal has applied for review of the order dated September 13, 2023 passed in WPLRT 124 of 2022. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that by virtue of a notification issued subha karmakar subha karmakar Date: 2025.06.25 under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, all estates and rights of the intermediaries in Purulia District stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances on April 14, 1964. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that, land belonging to the then intermediary namely Srilal Marwari vested in the State by operation of law. He has pointed out that, Srilal Marwari did not furnish choice of retention in Form-B within the stipulated date on July 31, 1964. Therefore, in 1971, suo moto proceeding had been initiated providing the intermediary to exercise its choice of retention under Section 6(5) of the Act of 1953. Son of Srilal Marwari namely Gokul Prasad Marwari had appeared in the hearing and submitted that Form-B on behalf of the Srilal Marwari. From the land schedule attached to such proceedings, it transpires that 16.63 acres of agricultural land apart from homestead land had been allowed to be retained and 25.58 acres of agricultural land and some non-agricultural land had stood vested in the State on December 16, 1964. After such vesting proceeding was completed on December 16, 1974, heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat had belatedly approached to the authorities in 1991 for reviewing of the case and by giving them an opportunity to submit a fresh Form-B. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State has contended that the prayer for reviewing the vesting proceedings and permission to submit a fresh Form-B was unreasonable. It had, however, generated memo dated September 6, 1996 by which, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer directed the Block and Land Reforms Officer to extend the relief to the writ petitioner by reviewing the BR Case. He has contended that, such correspondence was not in consonance with statutory provision and without any authenticity of law and, therefore, is not binding. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2010 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr.) 5. He has contended that, such correspondence was not in consonance with statutory provision and without any authenticity of law and, therefore, is not binding. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2010 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr.) 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, there is no provision for review under the Act of 1953. The vesting proceedings had initiated and culminated under the Act of 1953. In support of such contention, he has relied upon an order dated February 9, 1989 passed in Civil Rule no. 5935 (w) of 1979 (Sri Pashupati Gole & Ors. vs. the Revenue Officer, Settlement “B” Camp, Tamluk & Ors.) . He has also relied upon an order dated February 11, 2020 passed in WPLRT 203 of 2011 (Rabindra Nath Samanta & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) for the proposition that, the Act of 1953 disentitles the intermediary a further chance to submit Form- B. He has also relied upon 1993 Supp 4 Supreme Court Cases 674 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) in this regard. 6. Relying upon 2010 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 437 (Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, review of BR Case not permissible in the facts of the present case. 7. Relying upon 2023 volume 10 Supreme Court cases 807 (Mahadeo and others versus Sovan Devi and another) learned Senior Advocate for the review applicant has submitted that, the direction of the District Land and Land ReForms Officer (DL & LRO) does not confer any right on the writ petitioner. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, there is no provision barring alteration of Form-B or filing a fresh Form-B. He has relied upon 88 CWN 485 (Krittibus Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal) in this regard. 9. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon Section 6(5) of the Act of 1953 as well as Rule 4A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules, 1954 and submitted that, the same requires an intermediary to exercise his choice of retention within April 13, 1958. 9. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon Section 6(5) of the Act of 1953 as well as Rule 4A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules, 1954 and submitted that, the same requires an intermediary to exercise his choice of retention within April 13, 1958. He has contended that since no choice of retention was submitted within the prescribed period, the Act of 1953 allows the Revenue Officer to retain so much land as not to exceed the statutory limit after giving the intermediary an opportunity of being heard. He has relied on AIR 2003 SC 2328 (West Bengal Govt. Employees (Food and Supplies) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors vs. Smt. Sulekha Pal (Dey) and Others.) and 2012 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes (CAL) 572 (State of West Bengal vs. Star Iron works Ltd.) in this regard. 10. Relying upon 1993 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes 341 (Prabhat Kumar Das vs. State of West Bengal) learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that a subsequent proceeding for re-determination of the question of ceiling limit of a raiyat by a Revenue Officer is competent. 11. Relying upon 1975 Vol 2 CLJ 326 (Lakshmi Narayan Roy vs. Land Reforms Officer & Anr.) learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that Rule 4A of the Rules of 1954 requires an application to be made in a prescribed Form. Since, the prescribed Form came in later, the raiyat has the opportunity to submit the prescribed Form. 12. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, none of the authorities cited on behalf of the review applicant are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He has contended that, the order under review should not be interfered with. 13. By two notifications dated April 14, 1964 issued under the provisions of the Act of 1993, all estates and rights of intermediaries in the District of Purulia had stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. 14. One Srilal Marwari, son of Jokhiram Marwari was the original intermediary in respect of the plots in question. Srilal Marwari since deceased owned 43.21 acres of agricultural land, 4.83 acres of non-agricultural land and 0.12 acres of homestead land. Srilal Marwari submitted a Form-B in respect of 16.63 acres of land. Srilal Marwari was entitled to retain 25 acres of land. 15. Srilal Marwari since deceased owned 43.21 acres of agricultural land, 4.83 acres of non-agricultural land and 0.12 acres of homestead land. Srilal Marwari submitted a Form-B in respect of 16.63 acres of land. Srilal Marwari was entitled to retain 25 acres of land. 15. Authorities considered Form-B and allowed Srilal Marwari to retain 16.63 acres of land although he was entitled to retain 25 acres of land. Authorities did not take any steps with regard to balance 8.37 acres of land. 16. By an order dated September 6, 1994, the concerned DL&LRO had directed the concerned BL&LRO to extend the relief to the applicant by reviewing the BR Case. 17. Star Iron Works Ltd. (supra) has held that, Section 65 of the Act of 1953 deals with the choice of retention and not with the right of retention. 18. Krittibas Bhattacharyya & Ors. (supra) has held that, Form-B is capable of being amended subsequent to its filing. It has also held that, an intermediary has a right to amend Form-B already submitted or file a fresh Form-B. 19. Lakshmi Narayan Roy (supra) has held that an intermediary is entitled to amend or elect his choice of retention in Form-B and such intermediary is entitled to submit a fresh Form-B in prescribed Form. 20. In Rabindranath Samanta & Ors. (supra) , the Coordinate Bench has noted that this Court allowed submission of Form B afresh. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that, such judgments of the Court allowing submission of a fresh Form-B will not apply in view of an earlier decision amongst the parties holding that there was collusion between the private parties. Therefore, Rabindranath Samanta & Ors. (supra) cannot be construed to be laying down a law that a fresh Form-B cannot be submitted. Rather, it has noticed that fresh Form-B can be submitted and that, in the facts and circumstances of the individual case, the private party was not entitled to it. 21. Supreme Court in West Bengal Employees (Food and Supplies) Cooperative Housing Society (supra) has held that, before taking possession under sub-Section (2) of Section 10, the District Magistrate has to serve a written order in the prescribed manner requiring the intermediary or any other person in actual or symbolic possession to give up such possession. 22. 21. Supreme Court in West Bengal Employees (Food and Supplies) Cooperative Housing Society (supra) has held that, before taking possession under sub-Section (2) of Section 10, the District Magistrate has to serve a written order in the prescribed manner requiring the intermediary or any other person in actual or symbolic possession to give up such possession. 22. Prabhat Kumar Das (supra) has held that, a Revenue Officer is competent to initiate proceedings for redetermination of surplus land on the eventualities noted in the provisions of law, afresh. 23. Section 6 of the Act of 1953 specifies the quantum and the nature of land that an intermediary may hold under the State. It recognises several types of land and allows an intermediary to hold different types of land to the extent of permissible limit. It specifies the conditions of retention and allowing the State to revise the amount of land retained in respect of certain categories when, such land is not used for its intended purpose. 24. Rule 4A of the Rules of 1954 lays down the procedure for choosing land which an intermediary is entitled to retain under section 6 of the Act of 1953. It prescribes that, an intermediary will file the choice of retention in Form B. Rule 4A of the Rules of 1954 does not prohibit in express words amendment or rectification of a Form filed or prohibits filing of a fresh Form B. 25. Authorities noted above have consistently held that, filing of fresh Form B in terms of the Rules of 1954 and the Act of 1953 is permissible. Authorities have also held that, amendment of the Form B is permissible. Moreover, the state authority will have to issue a notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1953 if it decides to take possession of any land which belong to the raiyat and stood vested with the State under the Act of 1953. 26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the big raiyat although being entitled to retain 25 acres of land submitted a Form B for only 16.63 acres of land. The balance land 8.37 acres which belong to the big raiyat and did not vest with the State must be identified and made over to the heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat. The balance land 8.37 acres which belong to the big raiyat and did not vest with the State must be identified and made over to the heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat. Significantly, State is not claiming that, 8.37 acres of land stood vested with the State under the Act of 1953. Failure to incorporate the entirety of the land that a raiyat is entitled to retain, in the Form B would not automatically vest such land with the State. No provision to such effect is drawn to our attention. This 8.37 acres of land needs to be identified and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased big raiyat be allowed to deal with the same, in accordance with law and their wishes. 27. Therefore, the records would demonstrate that, the original Form B contains an error which the heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat are entitled to rectify or amend. State is required to consider such amended Form B in accordance with law. 28. Kartik Chandra Mondal & Ors. (supra) has dealt with issues relating to illegal or irregular appointment of casual workers. The ratio laid down therein has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 29. Mahadeo & Ors. (supra) has dealt with issues relating to service conditions of an employee. Again, the same has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 30. Sri Pashupati Gole (supra) has held that, unless statute expressly confers a power of review, the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to invoke such power of review. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question is of submission of a fresh Form-B for consideration by the authorities and not a question of review of the decision of the authority. 31. Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries Private Ltd. (supra) has dealt with the vesting of estate under Section 5 of the Act of 1953 particularly relating to tank fisheries.Land in question in the present case is not tank fisheries. 32. Kalabharati Adveritising (supra) has held that, in absence of statutory provision, review cannot be entertained in the garb of clarification that the earlier order cannot be modified or corrected. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue is consideration of a fresh Form-B and not one of review. 33. 32. Kalabharati Adveritising (supra) has held that, in absence of statutory provision, review cannot be entertained in the garb of clarification that the earlier order cannot be modified or corrected. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue is consideration of a fresh Form-B and not one of review. 33. By the order under review, we did not direct the concerned BL and LRO to review its decision based on the direction given by the DL & LRO but on the substantive right of the heirs and legal representatives of the big raiyat to submit a fresh Form B or to amend or rectify the Form B originally filed. The concerned BL & LRO is obliged to consider the fresh Form B or the amended or rectified Form B as the case may be. 34. By the order under review, we called upon the authorities after taking note of the fact that, there was a fresh Form-B filed, and that Form-b originally filed was for an area of 16.63 acres of land while the intermediary was entitled to retain 25 acres of such land, we required the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to work out the quantum of land that the intermediary is allowed to retain, identify the land that the intermediary sought to retain and pass an order with regard to land to which the big raiyat did not exercise his option of retention which he was entitled to retain. 35. In view of the discussions above, we find no ground to review the order dated September 13, 2023. 36. RVW 240 of 2023 is dismissed. Interim order if any passed in RVW 240 of 2023 stands vacated. Authorities will comply with the order dated September 30, 2023 within a period of fortnight from date. 37. List WPLRT 124 of 2022 three weeks hence. 38. I agree. [MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]