Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) The petitioner purchased 3.01 decimal of land from Respondent no. 5 by a Registered Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1960 for valuable consideration and possessed tile said land. Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the Revenue authorities for mutation of the name of the petitioner as tenant in respect of the said land and such mutation was allowed and the Government after mutating the name of the petitioner also received rents from the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has come to learn that on the alleged advice of the Land Advisory Committee, the land purchased by the petitioner is being treated as vested land and the Revenue authorities are taking steps to settle the said land to other persons. The petitioner contends that when the petitioners name was mutated and the rents were accepted by the Revenue authorities, the said land can not be treated as vested land behind the back of the petitioner and, in any event, by payment and acceptance of the rent between the parties a tenancy has been created. There is enough force in the contention of the petitioner. When the State Government has mutated the name of the petitioner as a tenant and has accepted rent from the petitioner as a tenant, the State Government can not treat the said land as vested land and settle the same to other parsons. Even assuming that the right of the petitioner's vendor had vested in the State of West Bengal but by the said subsequent acts it must be held that the State Government recognised the tenancy right of the petitioner.
(2.) Accordingly, this rule is made absolute but there will be no order as to costs.;