Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. - (1.) In the Writ application the petitioner challenges the inaction on the part of the Revenue Officer in not dealing with and/or disposing of the petitioner's representation in connection with determination whether the lands in question were situated in the irrigated or non-irrigated area. If such dispute was raised it was incumbent on the part of the Respondents to decide this question first and then to proceed to vest the land. In the instant case the ceiling of the petitioner was fixed taking the lands to be irrigated area. This is not permissible under the law in view of the Judgment of B. C. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Reazuddin Ahmed v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1982(1) Cal LJ at Page 434 wherein it was held that when such disputes are raised the question whether the land is situated in irrigated and area should be decided first and then to proceed with vesting. The petitioner's further grievance that some of the lands of other persons have been tagged with the petitioner's and bad been vested. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of vesting which is Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition and direct the Respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the Respondents are to decide the question first whether the lands are situated within irrigated for non-irrigated area and then to proceed with the vesting in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Revenue Officer will also consider such other objections as may be raised by the petitioner before the Revenue Officer in this case. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders are set aside. Let a Writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order of vesting which is Annexure A to the Petition and the respondents are give a liberty proceed afresh in accordance with law as indicated above. This order will also govern C. R. Nos. 2139(W) to 2142 (W) of 1978 and the said Rules are also made absolute.;