SHAMSUDDLN AHMED, J. - (1.) - Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, it appears the the grievance of the writ petitioners is that they were settled on the laid by the State of West Bengal, Aanexure 'A' series, and pattas granted to them After the grant of such pattas, they have paid rent to the State of West Bengal and their names were recorded in the record of rights under preparation Thereafter, they were served with a notice Annexure 'D' series, to the writ application. By the said notice, (be Junior Land Reforms Officer, Danton intimated the writ petitioners that pursuant to the order passed by S.D.O. Sadar on 29.9.86 which was being intimated to them that the lands which were settled with them wag initially treated as khas land of the State Government. But because of decision of different courts of law it has ceased to be so. Accordingly, he has directed the writ petitioners to return back the pattas granted to them and has also advised them not to cultivate the laud in question. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the lands settled under Section 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which has been done in the instant case can only be annulled after due compliance of the provisions laid down in sub section (2) thereof. Sub-section (2) contemplates revocation of settlement only under certain circumstances. It contemplates cancellation of pattas if the settlement was made by mistake or the same was obtained by practise of fraud, misrepresentation, concern or otherwise or that a transfer of such land bad been made of contravention of the provision of sub-section (IA). The notice, Annexure D' series, is not in my view revocation of the patta as contemplated under section 49(2). In effect these are only intimation of the said lease that because of the judgment passed by Courts, the lands no longer belonged to the lease and the settlements made have only come to an end and the return back of the pattas granted in their favour. Since this is not a cancellation as contemplated by section 49(2) it is futile to urge that the provision of that sub-section has not been complied with, But in my view this is a case of extreme hardship for the writ petitioners. They were found to be eligible for distribution of land under section 49(1) but for no fault of their own, they have been deprived of the lands which they were cultivating. In the circumstances, I direct the stale respondents to consider their case preferably if any other land vested in the Slate can be granted to them. If any land vested in the State is within the State Government ;or the settlement in or around the area where the petitioners were granted pattas, they should be given top preference. In the circumstances of the case, with the observations as above, this writ application stands dismissed. No costs.;