This differs from the case of Niranjan
Chatterjee (supra), wherein the High Court of Calcutta did, in fact, hold that
the stayed decision would continue to have precedential value. However, the
factual backdrop of the said decision differs significantly from the present
case, as the stay directed by the Supreme Court therein attached specific
conditions for maintenance of status quo as well as other directions, which
ultimately guided the Court's understanding of the effect such a stay would
have.
Further, in view of the above discussions we do not find substance in
the submissions made by Mr. Rabilal Moitra, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the respondent, that the writ petitioner was in
possession of the land in question and for that reason he was entitled to
submit his option in B-Form under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act,
1953, for retention of his share of land on the basis of the decree of
declaration under reference in the light of the decisions of Gour Gopal Mitra
& Anr. vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 67 CWN 12, Niranjan
Chatterjee & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2007 (3)
CHN 683, Mohammad Ali vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported
in (2012) 3 WBLR (Cal) 590, Prabhangshu Sekhar Maity vs. State of West
Bengal, reported in 2012 (4) CHN (CAL) 167 and Lakshmi Narayan Roy &
Ors. vs. Land Reforms Officer & Ors., reported in 80 CWN 42, so long as
the order of vesting of portion of the land in question was in existence and
without taking any steps in accordance with law before the competent
authority in connection with the order of vesting.