Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) In this Rule the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Bhagchas Officer, Nayagram at Kharika Mathani on 2.12.72 recording that "Sri Karuna Nidhan Saren is the Bargadar of Plots 83 and 99 consisting 1.16 acres and 21 acres of land respectively of mouza Sonamukhi." The order further records as follows : "Inform B. Camp Officer to take n/a U/S 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 1st Copy of F.P.R. O R. of this office is noted accordingly." This order, as already stated, is signed by the Bhagchas Officer of the place. In this Rule the petitioner is challenging this order contending that the Revenue Officer, especially empowered by the State Government in this behalf can maintain up-to-date in the prescribed manner the village record-of-rights by incorporating (herein the changes on account of, inter alia, alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example by a Bargadar.
(2.) It appears from Memo.No. 18098 (10) GE/824/71 dated 6th December 1971 issued by the Board of Revenue of the Government of West Bengal, GE Branch A Section that in respect of recording of Bargadars in the Record-of-rights a procedure has been laid down which is as follows : "On receipt of a petition from an unrecorded bargadar to have his name recorded, the Junior Land Reforms Officer shall immediately hold an enquiry and if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, he is satisfied that the applicant is a bargadar, enter his name in the copy of the Record-of-Rights. He shall simultaneously send the information to the Settlement Camp concerned for recording the name in the original copy of the Records-of-Rights under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act."
(3.) In this instant case the enquiry appears to have not been made by the Bhagchas Officer and we have not been shown any document to hold that he is the officer duly authorised to take action on the application filed by an unrecorded Bargadar. Further the copy of the application, as it appears, was served on the petitioner on 28.11.72 while his case was fixed for hearing on 29.11.72. Ashe was absent on that date the Bhagchas Officer, solely for this reason, passed the order as noted above. This seems to be an order not in accordance even with the Memo, of the Board of Revenue as no enquiry appears to have been made by the Bhagchas Officer even if he is deemed to be the duly authorised officer for the purpose.;