JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against an older passed under section 44(23) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act directing for revision of the record of rights of R.S. khatian No. 50 of Mouza Bimalpara, J. L. No. 14l, P.S. Kaliaganj, District West Dinajpur. 2. In order to appreciate the facts of the case it is necessary-to state in brief the salient facts. The suit-property orginally belonged to one Ram Chandra Mandai, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The said Ram Chandra Mondal was a tenant in respect of the land measuring about 4.53 acres under the then landlord. His name was also recorded in the District Settlement record of rights as a tenant. In the revisional record of rights this land was recorded in the name of Monoranjan Roy, a grandson of Ram Chandra Mondal, as appears from the khasra record of rights and subsequently in the attestation proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Schedule B under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the names of the petitioner No.1 and the name of Monoranjan Roy, one of the sons of Harimohan Roy, one of the sons of Ram Chandra, were recorded. 3. A notice under section 44 (2a) was issued to the petitioners starting a suo motu proceeding, being objection case no. 8 of 1970, and along with the notice a copy of the order-sheet was served on the petitioners who were directed to produce relevant papers and documents to support the entry in the record of rights of the aforesaid kbatian. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioners appeared before the Revenue Officer and produced certain rent receipts and it was contended on their behalf that the aforesaid land which originally was owned by their predecessor Ram Chandra as a tenant under the then superior landlord was surrendered by Ram Chandra in favour of the previous landlord and thereafter in 1359 B. S., the petitioners took settlement of the land on the basis of an Amalnama. It was also the further case of the petitioners that they paid rents to the superior landlord till the date of vesting of the superior interest in respect of the said land in the State. It was also the further case of the petitioners that they paid rents to the superior landlord till the date of vesting of the superior interest in respect of the said land in the State. The petitioners thus contend that the record of right has been duly prepared as it is based on the basis of the settlement taken by the petitioners after the surrender of the tenancy of Ram Chandra from the then superior landlord and as such the record of rights cannot be revised in a suo motu proceeding under section 44(2a). 4. The Revenue Officer, after having heard the contentions of the petitioners by Order No. 3 dated 24th June, 1970 was of opinion that there was no case for such surrender of the tenancy interest by the grandfather and subsequent taking settlement of the same by the grandsons, the present petitioners, and he was also of the opinion that no specific date of surrender was also mentioned in order to prove the same. He was further of opinion that two sons of Ram Chandra, Rajmohan and Harimohan had lands which is just 5elow the ceiling and so in order to avoid the mischief of the provisions of section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has got the said thing done in connivance with the superior interest-holders and the Revenue Officer therefore passed tin order for revision of this record of rights of the aforesaid khatian and recording the same in the names of the two sons of Ram Chandra, namely, Rajmohan and Harimohan. 5. It is against this order, this instant Rule was obtained. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioners, contends that there can be oral surrender of tenancy in respect of agricultural land and no registered deed is necessary for the 'same. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Dutta bas cited a decision reported in (1) 28 CLJ 220. Mr. Dulta secondly submitted that the Revenue Officer was wrong in not accepting the story of surrender inasmuch as no contrary evidence was produced to disprove the same by the Collector. Mr. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Dutta bas cited a decision reported in (1) 28 CLJ 220. Mr. Dulta secondly submitted that the Revenue Officer was wrong in not accepting the story of surrender inasmuch as no contrary evidence was produced to disprove the same by the Collector. Mr. Dutta thirdly contended that a presumption arises from the finally published record of rights and as such in a proceeding under section 44 (2a) whether the tenancy recorded was properly created or not relates to a matter which is beyond the pale of jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer. It is pre-eminently a question to be decided by the civil court and as such the order of the Revenue Officer is also wrong and without jurisdiction. Mr. Dutta in support of above contentions stated that his clients produced rent receipt which were not disbelieved by the Revenue Officer and as such the Revenue Officer should have accepted the story of tenancy as made out by the petitioners. It was on these grounds the aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer has been assailed before me. Mrs. Sircar, learned Advocate for the State, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition sworn by one Sri Nirmal Chandra Kundu, Special Revenue Officer, Grade II, wherein in paragraph 5 it has been specifically stated that the names of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2(a) to 2(c) were recorded to the extent of eight annas share each in respect of an area measuring 4•53 acres in the said khatian No. 50 on the strength of an alleged verbal gift during attestation. In support of this averment made in the said affidavit-in-opposition Mrs. Sircar has produced before this Court the attested record of rights wherefrom it appears that the said khatian was attested as early as on 4th April, 1955 and in the column relating to the details of the right it was recorded "on the basis of oral deed of gift by Ram Chandra and mutated by jamindar". Mrs. Sircar also produced the khasra record of rights wherein the said khatian was recorded only in the name of Monoranjan Roy, the grandson of Ram Chandra and the son of Harimohan Roy. Mrs. Sircar submits that neither any amalnama nor any other document have been filed in support of the alleged story of surrender of the said tenancy. Mrs. Mrs. Sircar also produced the khasra record of rights wherein the said khatian was recorded only in the name of Monoranjan Roy, the grandson of Ram Chandra and the son of Harimohan Roy. Mrs. Sircar submits that neither any amalnama nor any other document have been filed in support of the alleged story of surrender of the said tenancy. Mrs. Sircar also states that the alleged rent receipts that were filed before the Revenue Officer was taken back by the petitioners and those were not filed in this case. She further submits that there is no proof of the alleged surrender of said tenancy and taking settlement of the same by the petitioners who are none other thin the grandsons of the previous tenant. 6. It appears that Ram Chandra, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, surrendered his tenancy and thereafter the petitioners took settlement. The taking of settlement of the said land as made out in this petition is quite contrary to the case made out before the Attestation Officer at time of attestation of the said record of rights wherein the entry was revised and the names of the petitioners were recorded on the basis of an alleged oral gift by Ram Chandra, the grandfather of the petitioners. Moreover, not a single scrap of paper or document has been produced before this Court to support the story of surrender. Neither the amalnama nor the rent receipts have been produced in support of the said story of surrender as well as of alleged new tenancy. It is also curious that no specific date or time of surrender has been mentioned anywhere of this petition and this speaks a volume about genuineness of the story of surrender. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that a tenancy will be surrendered by the grandfather and immediately thereafter the same will be taken settlement of by the grandsons because generally tenancy is surrendered in cases where the lands which are the subject matter of surrender becomes unproductive or otherwise the owner of the same thinks it unprofitable to keep it as a tenancy. In view of this circumstance, it is very difficult to believe the story of surrender by the grandfather and the simultaneous taking settlement of the said land by the grandsons on the basis of an alleged amalnama which never saw the light of the day. Regarding the contention raised by Mr. In view of this circumstance, it is very difficult to believe the story of surrender by the grandfather and the simultaneous taking settlement of the said land by the grandsons on the basis of an alleged amalnama which never saw the light of the day. Regarding the contention raised by Mr. Dutta that the finding of the Revenue Officer is based on assumption is not sustainable in view of the circumstances stated above. The further contentions of Mr. Dutta as to the scope of section 44 (2a) of the said Act does not also hold any water. It is quite evident from the provisions of section 44 (4) that the presumption attached to the finally published record of rights is a rebuttable presumption and is subject to revision under section 42A or under section 45 or under section 44 (2a) or section 45A. This clearly show that the Revenue Officer has got jurisdiction under the Act to revise an entry in the finally published record of rights if it, is found that the entry has got no basis. Mr. Dutta also argued that the Revenue Officer is not authorised under the Act to go into the question of title. It is of course correct that the Revenue Officer cannot directly initiate a proceeding to decide the question of title but the Revenue Officer can go into the question of title incidentally in a summary manner while determining the basis of an entry in the finally published record of rights and this will be evident from the provisions of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act as well as from the provisions of Schedule B framed under Rule 25 of the said Rules. So, this contention of Mr. Dutta fails. 7. In view of the findings made above the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners having failed this Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. 8 Let the operation of the order be stayed for a period of five weeks. As the original copy of the affidavit-in-opposition is not traceable let plain Copy of the affidavit-in-opposition as submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent be kept in the record.