JUDGMENT The petitioner, who admittedly is a lessee in respect of Beel Barial Jalkar under Suti L. R. Circle (hereinafter referred to as the said Jalkar), for 1382 B. S. has impeached in this Rule, the issue of a tender notice in annexure 'D', for having the said Jalkar settled amongst others for the year 1383 B. S. and the subsequent determination by the Additional District Magistrate (L.R.) Murshidabad in annexure F, and wherein he has opined that there would be no bar in having fresh settlement of the said Jalkar for 1383 B.S. 2. Admittedly, by the tender notice in annexure A, which is dated 24th February 1975, under Rule 273(AA), (b) and (e) of the Government Estate Manual, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Manual), a tender was invited for the settlement of the Jalkar for 1382 B. S. It has also been mentioned in the said tender notice that such settlement may be for a long term at a discretion of the competent authority and subject to confirmation of particular Rule 75 read with Rule 271 of the said Manual. It has been alleged by the petitioner that in terms of the said tender notice, he duly filed his offer, wherein he made it clear that if the settlement was for one year, he would pay Rs. 4,500/- but if it is for there years, he would pay Rs. 5,550/- per year. The statements about the payment of Rs. 4,500/- if the settlement is for one year, is apparently incorrect because it has now transpired from a reference to the offer as produced along with the record that he in fact offered Rs. 5000/- if the settlement was for one year. Be that as it may, the offer of the petitioner was accepted and he, it appears from annexure B to the petition which is a receipt dated 17th March 1975 deposited Rs. 1375/- on account of 1/4th at the lease money of the said Jalkar for 1382 (B.S.). The said amount was accepted with a notice that the same was subject to approval of the higher authorities. It further appears from annexure 'C' to the petition, which is another receipt, that on 11th April, 1975, the petitioner deposited the balance of Rs. 1375/- on account of 1/4th at the lease money of the said Jalkar for 1382 (B.S.). The said amount was accepted with a notice that the same was subject to approval of the higher authorities. It further appears from annexure 'C' to the petition, which is another receipt, that on 11th April, 1975, the petitioner deposited the balance of Rs. 1,125/- on account of 3/4th of the lease money of the said Jalkar for 1382 B. S. and such amount was again received subject to approval of higher authorities. On a reference to those receipts, which without any doubt show the payment of Rs. 5,500/- it has been submitted by the petitioner that such acceptance of Rs. 5,500/- would establish that he was granted a lease for three years in respect of the said jalkar and that too pursuant to his offer as aforesaid. It has further been stated in the petition that when such offer of the said sum for three years was accepted, there was a tacit representation, at least by the respondents to the petitioner, that he would be or in fact he has been granted lease for the said jalkar for three years and on that assurance, the petitioner has acted to his detriment and prejudice. In fact, it has been stated in the petition that on the understanding as aforesaid, the petitioner has spent more than Rs. 25,000/- for the development of the said jalkar and reared fish there. 3. The present Rule as aforesaid, was obtained when a fresh tender for 1383 B.S. for the settlement of the said jalkar, was invited and while issuing the Rule, this court was pleased to grant an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned tender is annexure B and further to allow the petitioner to continue his possession in respect of the said jalkar until 1384 B.S. in terms of the settlement. It appears that because of this injunction, the petitioner has been in the said jalkar and is still there. At one stage a dispute arose as to the person who is in possession of the said jalkar. Claims and counterclaims were made and since I was not in a position to have the actual facts from the pleadings of the parties, I had to appoint Mr. At one stage a dispute arose as to the person who is in possession of the said jalkar. Claims and counterclaims were made and since I was not in a position to have the actual facts from the pleadings of the parties, I had to appoint Mr. Tapas Mukherjee, a learned Advocate of this court as Commissioner and Mr. Mukherjee by his report dated 24th January 1978 has mentioned that the petitioner at all material times was and is still in possession of the said jalkar. 4. It should also be noted that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to this petition. But the appearing respondents filed an application for vacating or modifying the interim order on 28th November 1977 and Mr. Amulya Kumar Mukherjee, appearing for the said applicants and for the respondents in the Rule made it clear that the statements as made in the said application, be treated as opposition to the statements as contained in the petition. To that application an opposition dated 22nd September 1977 was also filed and Mr. Giri agreed to have the statements made therein to be treated as reply to the statement, as made by the appearing respondents in their application as aforesaid. 5. The respondents have contended that the settlement of the said jalkar with the petitioner was specifically for one year and the subsequent amount which has been accepted by them either for 1383 B. S. or for 1384 B. S. would not give him any right or authorise him to continue with the possession of the said jalkar and such acceptance was on account of charges for holding over as the petitioner, even in spite of the expiry of his tenure, was in fact holding over possession of the said jalkar. The fact that a sum of Rs. 5,500/- has been accepted, is not in dispute and that fact also appears from the original receipt dated 21st February 1977, which was produced by Mr. Giri in court, the number of the said receipt is 745280/17. This apart, Mr. Mukherjee produced the proposal for the tender in question, which is dated 18th March 1977 and there it has been mentioned that the settlement would be fur 1382 B.S. and in fact from 1st of Baisak 1382 B.S. to 31st Chaitra 1382 B.S. It was further submitted, by Mr. This apart, Mr. Mukherjee produced the proposal for the tender in question, which is dated 18th March 1977 and there it has been mentioned that the settlement would be fur 1382 B.S. and in fact from 1st of Baisak 1382 B.S. to 31st Chaitra 1382 B.S. It was further submitted, by Mr. Mukherjee that even if in the tender notice it has been mentioned that the terms of settlement should be for one year which again can be extended for a further period at the discretion of the authorities concerned, would not enure any benefit to the petitioner. In fact it was submitted by him that in terms of the discretion as mentioned in the tender notice in annexure A, the subsequent proposal has been issued and that shows the settlement in the instant case was for one year only. This apart, various allegations have been made in the said application, which fact has of course been denied by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Giri appearing in support of the Rule, has submitted firstly, that when there was the specific offer by the petitioner that if the said jalkar is settled for one year, the petitioner would pay Rs. 5,000/- and if it is for three years he would pay Rs. 5,500/- and the fact of such acceptance of Rs. 5,500/- is available from the two receipts as mentioned hereinbefore, that would establish on the face of the records, that the offer of the petitioner, to have the settlement of the jalkar for three years, was accepted and in terms of the said offer, the petitioner has acted to his detriment and prejudice. It was submitted that when the petitioner has so acted to his prejudice and detriment, so in terms of the determinations of the Supreme Court in the Cases of Union of India v. Anglo Afgan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718 and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council AIR 1971 SC 1021 , the petitioner must be deemed to have a subsisting interest and a right to carryon the operations with and in the said jalkar at least for three years and upto 1384 B.S. It was also submitted by Mr. Giri that when the petitioner has already deposited the money for and upto 1384 B.S. and has practically enjoyed the tenure barring a few months, this Rule should be made absolute. Mr. Giri that when the petitioner has already deposited the money for and upto 1384 B.S. and has practically enjoyed the tenure barring a few months, this Rule should be made absolute. Mr. Mukherjee, in his turn submitted that steps in the matter were taken under the provisions of the West Bengal Government Manual which only deals with principles, policy and procedure for Khas management of Government estates and as such the said manual has no statutory basis or effect and in that view of the matter any steps taken thereunder, cannot be exposed to any scrutiny by this court, it was also submitted by him that the respondents in the instant case had no other alternative than to accept the money which was so deposited, because the petitioner was holding over and that too in terms of the order of injunction as issued by this court. The fact, that the said manual has got no statutory effect cannot be disputed in view of the several determination of this court. The first of such determination was made by Mr. Justice D. N. Sinha, as His Lordship then was, in the case of Bidyadhari Spill Matsyajibi Samabaya Samity Limited v. State of West Bengal 65 CWN 685 and thereafter, in the case of Lalgola Padma Fisherman's Co-operative Society v. State of West Bengal 78 CWN 386 and ultimately in the case of Falta Fort Refugee Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Additional District Magistrate (E. A.) 24-Parganas and others 79 CWN 366. Thus, for any steps taken under the said Manual, this court will not ordinarily be authorised to make any interference, but if the facts of the case were only like that and upto that points, there would have been any difficulty. The difficulty in the instant case has bee n created by the two determinations of the Supreme Court as referred to hereinbefore and the subsequent acceptance of the amount by the respondents concerned. They have of course given their explanation as to why and how they had to accept such amount. The petitioner has in fact acted to his prejudice and detriment and as submitted by Mr. Giri on the basis of the assurances, by accepting the amount of Rs. They have of course given their explanation as to why and how they had to accept such amount. The petitioner has in fact acted to his prejudice and detriment and as submitted by Mr. Giri on the basis of the assurances, by accepting the amount of Rs. 5,500/- which the petitioner offered in case the tenure was given to him for three years and in view of the fact that the petitioner has acted to his prejudice and detriment and has in fact invested a large amount, it is very difficult to understand why he should not be allowed to carryon his operations, upto and till the end of 1384 B. S. In view of the above, although I am of the view that this court cannot ordinarily interfere with a determination or settlement made in terms of the provisions of the Estate Manual, I have got no other alternative hut to accept the other contentions of Mr. Giri and as such this Rule should succeed. The Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. It must also be noted that by my order dated 8th February 1978, I have already recorded that the pendency of the order of injunction would not prejudice the respondents from taking appropriate steps in having settled the Jalkar for 1385 B. S. and onwards and the respondents would be now at liberty to take appropriate steps for having the said jalkar settled for 1385 B. S. and thereafter. Rule made absolute.