A consequential record-correction notice cannot be challenged while the underlying vesting order remains unassailed.

The petitioner purchased the subject property in 2003 from a vendor who had purchased it in 1976 from an original “big raiyat”; the petitioner’s name was subsequently mutated in the records.

In proceedings under Section 14T(3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (“1955 Act”), the subject plot was held to have vested in the State by an order dated 8 November 2017. The petitioner had notice of, and was represented at, that proceeding.

In 2018, he received a notice under Sections 50 and 57 of the 1955 Act for consequential correction of the records-of-rights. The Tribunal rejected his challenge to that notice because the 2017 order had not been challenged.

The petitioner then challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to prior notice under Section 14U(3) before action was taken against him as a subsequent purchaser.

2. Whether the notice under Sections 50 and 57 for correction of the records-of-rights could be challenged independently when it followed an unchallenged order under Section 14T(3A).

Section 14U(3) of the 1955 Act provides for taking possession from a raiyat, and, where recovery from that raiyat is not possible, from the transferee, in the circumstances specified by that provision.

Section 14T(3A) was the basis of the earlier vesting proceeding in this case.

Sections 50 and 57 were invoked for consequential correction of the records-of-rights.

The Court treated a notice for such consequential correction as flowing from the earlier vesting order; where that parent order remained unchallenged, the consequential notice could not be displaced by challenging it alone.

The Court held that Section 14U(3) operated in a different sphere and that the State had not proceeded against the petitioner under that provision.

Instead, the petitioner had been heard in the Section 14T(3A) proceeding, and the notice under Sections 50 and 57 concerned only correction of the records pursuant to the resulting vesting order.

As the petitioner had stepped into his vendor’s shoes and the 2017 order remained unchallenged, the consequential notice was valid and the Tribunal had correctly rejected the challenge.

There was no order as to costs.