GANENDRA NARAYAN ROY,J. - (1.) In this Rule the petitioners possessed 6.50 acres of agricultural lands appertaining Plot No. 4054 of Khatian No. 1008 of Mouza Mohonpur in the District of 24-Parganas and for such possession of the land, it appears that petitioners had to pay at the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre to the State Government under Section 10, Sub-Section (6) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The petitioners state that they have been in possession of the said lands for a number of years and had paid to the State Government fees at the said rate of Rs. 10/- per acre for such occupation of the lands in question. The petitioners' case is that the State Government is intending to settle these lands no such settlement can be made by the State Government without evicting the petitioners in due course of law. In this connection the petitioners relied on an unreported decision made in the case of Md. Kalu Molla v. The State of West Bengal and others in Civil Rule No. 601(W) of 1973. Banerjee, J. held in the said case that the petitioner who similarly held some lands on payment of licence fees could not be automatically ousted from the said land by giving settlement to others and such settlement could be made only when the petitioners is evicted in due course of law or by any other legislative process. Liberty was given to the respondents in the said case to take such other proceedings as they may be advised for eviction of the petitioner and thereafter to make settlement of the land. In my view, the decision made in the said unreported judgment applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It may be stated in this connection that the fees at the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre ware realised from the present petitioners under section 10(6) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and it has been provided in Sub-section (6) of section 10 of the said Act that the intermediary or any other person who possesses the land which was in the khas possession of the intermediary before the date of vesting but which the intermediary had not retained or could not retain under section 6, then whether possession of such land has been taken by the Collector in pursuance of sub-section (2) or not the intermediary or such person shall be liable for payment for the period for which he is in possession of such land. Hence the State Government must take possession of the lands of the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter settle the said lands to any other persons. So long the possession of the petitioners lands is not taken by the State Government in accordance with law, the State Government cannot settle the said lands to any other persons. To the extent above this Rule is made absolute, but liberty is granted to the State Government to evict the petitioners in due course of law and thereafter to make settlement of the said land to other persons. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs.;