Judgment 1. THE plaintiff opposite party, Sadhan Chandra Barik filed a title suit, being t. S. No. 93 of 1974, in the First Court of the Munsif at Diamond Harbour against the defendant-petitioner praying for a declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the suit laid described in schedule Khas to the plaint. The defendant-petitioner entered appearance and claimed that he was a Bargadar in respect of the suit land and on April 7, 1975 filed an application before the learned Munsif for referring to the bhagchas Officer for a decision of the question whether the defendant was a bargadar or not in accordance with the provisions of section 21 (3) of the West. Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The learned Munsif by order No. 26 dated June 17, 1975 rejected the petitioner's application holding, inter alia, that the dispute between the parties was the subject matter of a 'suit' and the order prayed for would tantamount to the passing of an interlocutory order in the 'suit' as it would not be a proceeding and as such as in section 21 (3) of the act the word 'proceeding' and not 'suit' has been used he had no authority to refer the question to the Bhagchas officer. This Order of the learned munsif has been impugned in this Rule. 2. IN my view, this application must succeed Section 21 (3) of the Act is in the following terms :- "if any question as to whether a person is or is rot a bargadar arises in the course of any proceedings before any Civil or Criminal Court, the court shall refer to the officer or authority mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 18 lord decision." It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid sub-section that the word proceeding is wide enough to cover a suit. It this was not so, then, if a question whether a person was or was not a bargadar arose in a suit, then the authority constituted under the Act to determine this question would have no jurisdiction to do. This could not possibly be the intention of the legislature which has created a special authority under the Act to determine the aforesaid question. 3. IN the instant case in the course of wearing of the suit a question was raised whether the defendant was a bargadar or not. This could not possibly be the intention of the legislature which has created a special authority under the Act to determine the aforesaid question. 3. IN the instant case in the course of wearing of the suit a question was raised whether the defendant was a bargadar or not. The petition by the defendant to the court for a reference to the Bhagchas Officer is therefore competent and the learned Munsif should have referred the matter accordingly under section 21 (3) of the Act to the authority contemplated under the Act. 4. THIS application accordingly succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. Order No. 26 dated 17. 6. 75, passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 93/74 is set aside. The learned Munsif will refer to the appropriate authority under the Act the question whether the defendant is a bargadar or not and after getting a report of the competent authority, he will proceed with the suit in accordance with law. There will be no orders as to costs in this Rule. Rule made absolute.