JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is directed against an order made by respondent No. 2, Bhagchas Officer, under section 19b, of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as affirmed in appeal by the respondent No, 1, Sub-divisional Officer, Tamluk. 2. The petitioners claim to have purchased 48 acres of land, in plot No, 216 of Mouza Kasijhora, from respondent No. 7 and another. Respondent No. 8 disputes the title of the petitioners on the basis of the said purchase. There is a litigation now going on before the first court of the Munsif at Tamluk, between the petitioners and the respondent No. 8 on the question of title to the above mentioned plot. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, at one time, claimed title to the disputed land in the settlement proceedings but failed to have their name-; recorded as owners of the disputed plot of land. Failing in their claim of title to the land, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 took up the attitude that they were bargadar in possession of the disputed land and filed an application under section 19b of the West Bengal Land Reforms act before the respondent No. 1, Bhagchas Officer alleging that the petitioners had wrongfully dispossessed them of the paddy cultivated by them on the disputed land and praying for a share in the paddy or the price thereof. 3. The respondent No. 2, the Bhagchas Officer, found that the petitioners had wrongfully taken away the paddy and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 127/- to the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Bhagchas Officer further ordered that the petitioners must give up possession of the disputed plot of land to respondents Nos. 3 to 5, for cultivation by them as bargadars. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the Bhagchas Officer, before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, but failed to get any relief in the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Bhagchas Officer, as affirmed in appeal, the petitioners moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for the quashing of the order of the Bhagchas Officer, as affirmed in appeal, and for a writ of Mandamus upon the respondents restraining them from giving effect to the impugned order and obtained this Rule. Mr. Mr. S. N. Ghorai, learned Advocate for the petitioners, argued two points in support of the Rule. He argued, in the first place, that there was considerable dispute over the point whether the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were bargadars and the Bhagchas Officer was not the competent authority to decide that dispute under section 19b, of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. He contended, in the next place, that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have never been dispossessed by the petitioners nor were their cultivation terminated by the petitioners and as such the respondent Bhagchas Officer had no jurisdiction to make any order under section 19b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against the petitioners. 5. Under section 18 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act the Bhagchas Officer has jurisdiction to decide a dispute on the question whether a person is a bargadar or not. Section 19b of the Act, however, does not contemplate decision of a dispute as to whether a person is a bargadar or not. But nevertheless the Bhagchas Officer is the authority to decide such a question. Since it was the Bhagchas Officer who decided the question that the respondents nos. 3 to 5 were bargadars, I cannot hold that the said decision was absolutely without jurisdiction, although made in a proceeding under section 19b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. I, therefore, cannot make much of the first branch of the argument made by Mr. Ghorai. 6. I now turn to the other branch of the argument made by Mr. Ghorai. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 it is stated as follows: "I say that the petitioners are not cultivating the disputed land from the date of their alleged purchase on 17.2.60 but the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 are cultivating the same all along. " How in the face of this statement in the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 claim to have been dispossessed or their cultivation of the disputed land as bargadars terminate, is difficult to visualise. Mr. Basanta Kumar Panda, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are cultivating the same all along. " How in the face of this statement in the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 claim to have been dispossessed or their cultivation of the disputed land as bargadars terminate, is difficult to visualise. Mr. Basanta Kumar Panda, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 3 to 5, no doubt invited my attention to paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply, in which the statement made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition was disputed but this does not conclusively go to show that the cultivation of land by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as bargadars has been terminated. On the materials before me it appears that the petitioner may have cut away the paddy cultivated by the respondents Nos. 3 to 5, without formally terminating the cultivation of the land by them as bargadars. That may have been, a criminal act or may have been an act of tort on their part. For such an action the remedy does not lie in an action under section 19b (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Section 19b (1) is in the following language: " (I) If a person owning any land terminates or causes to be terminated the cultivation of the land by a bargadar in contravention of the provisions of this Act, then any officer specially empowered by the State government in his behalf, shall, on an application by such bargadar, by order direct- (a) in a case where such land has not been cultivated, or has been cultivated by the owner or by any person on his behalf other than a bargadar, that the land be immediately restored to the applicant and further that forty per cent, of any produce of the land shall be forfeited to the State Government and the remaining sixty per cent of such crops shall be retained by the applicant. (b) in a case where such land has been cultivated by a new bargadar engaged by the owner, that the land be restored at the end of the cultivation season to the applicant and further that the net bargadar shall retain fifty per cent of the crops harvested before restoration and make over the remaining fifty per cent of such crops to the applicant. " 7. " 7. In order to maintain an action under section 19b (1) it must have to be proved that there has been an illegal termination of cultivation of the land by a bargadar. If that fact is not proved, then no action under section 19b (1) can be maintained. Even if this jurisdictional fact be proved, then clauses (a) and (b) of section 19b (1) cover contingencies other than what was complained of by the respondents Nos. 3 to a before the Bhagchas Officer. Since the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are themselves in possession but may have suffered a criminal or a tortuous act in the hands of the petitioners, they are not entitled to any relief under section 19b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In the view that I take I quash the order passed by the Bhagchas Officer as well as the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in appeal. Let a Writ of Certiorari accordingly issue. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order for costs.