CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, B. C. RAY, JJ. ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 57 to this appeal claim to be the owners of the lands situated in the different mouzas P. S. Basanti, District 24-Parganas. They have purported to give a detailed list of the lands allegedly owned by them in the Annexure 'a' to the writ petition filed by them. They have alleged that each of them personally cultivate the said lands and that none of these lands are cultivated by Bagadars. On 1st September, 1978 the Officer-in-Charge, Centralised Halka Camp, Basanti, 24-Parganas had issued a memo addressed to the Secretary to the local congress committee enclosing a list of mouzas where Operation Barga work would start very soon on priority basis. The said memo contained a list of proposed sites for offices for the aforesaid purpose. The respondents 1 to 57 herein in their writ petition have inter alia, prayed that the appellants in this appeal (the respondents in the writ petition) be commanded to cancel and re-call the aforesaid memo and to prohibit them from taking any steps in the Operation Barga. They have prayed for quashing of the impugned memo and the notice. Their writ petition also contains a prayer for issue of appropriate writs to command the respondents to the writ petition not to prepare any Record of Rights under S. 51a of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act without making a declaration and proclamation in the filed and without notice and without allowing the petitioner to take part in such proceedings and to place their case. ( 2 ) NINE other similar writ petitions were filed by others. On 15th of September 1978, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji was pleased to issue Rules upon ten writ petitions. His Lordship was pleased to grant interim orders to the extent that no further effect would be given to the impugned notice dated 1st September, 1978. The petitioners were given liberty to apply for further interim orders with notice. The learned Single Judge by his orders dated 22nd and 29th September, 1978, had extended the said interim orders. On 17th November 1978 and again on 20th November 1978 the learned Single Judge modified and clarified the aforesaid interim orders. The petitioners were given liberty to apply for further interim orders with notice. The learned Single Judge by his orders dated 22nd and 29th September, 1978, had extended the said interim orders. On 17th November 1978 and again on 20th November 1978 the learned Single Judge modified and clarified the aforesaid interim orders. The State and its officers have preferred the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against orders dated 17th and 20th November 1978 passed in C. R. No. 8348 (W) of 1978 Kanailal Saha and ors. v. The State and ors. ). ( 3 ) THE appellants have filed an application for stay of the operation of the aforesaid two orders appealed against. The respondents have opposed the said prayer. At the outset it is necessary for us to point out that this order will not govern the present case (arising out of C. R. No. 8348 (W)/78) and at present we need not consider the correctness and propriety of the orders which might have been passed upon other writ petitions which have been filed, inter alia, challenging the 'operation Barga'. The State has not preferred appeals in respect of interim orders passed in other Rules and we are not aware whether or not the facts involved in the other Rules are similar and whether or not the grounds of challenge are identical. We have not also heard the learned advocates appearing for the different parties in the other Rules. Therefore, the order passed today will only govern the present appeal. ( 4 ) BEFORE we consider the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants and respondents it is also necessary to briefly mention the back ground of this case. It appears that on or about 12th November 1973 the Governor of West Bengal, in the exercise of power conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, had made an order directing that the Records of Rights in respect of the district of 24-Parganas be revised by a Revenue Officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the said Act and the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 in this behalf. On the same date, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Bengal Survey Act, 1875, the Governor of West Bengal and ordered that a survey be made of all lands which are comprised in the District of 24-Parganas and that the boundaries and mouzas fields be demarcated on the lands so to be surveyed. On 23rd December, 1974, in exercise of the powers conferred by the 1st proviso to Paragraph (1) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 the Governor gave permission for omitting steps for traverse and cadastral survey. The Governor by the same notification ordered that the steps for preliminary record writing or Khanapuri and local examination or Bujherat be amalgamated in revising the Records of Rights in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 12th November, 1973. The learned Advocates for both parties have stated before us that the revisional proceedings for preparation and publication of the Records of Rights in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules are now in progress in the different mouzas within P. S. Basanti. ( 5 ) THE appellants have placed before us a copy of Memo No. 12304 (27) GE dated 5th July, 1978 issued by the Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal on the subject ?operation Barga?. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, West Bengal in Paragraph (1) of the said Memo dated 5th July, 1978, stated that the entire work of recording of Bargadars under an intensive drive envisaged in the decision of the workshop may be divided into five distinct operations set out in succeeding paragraphs of the aid Memo. ( 6 ) THE paragraph (5) of the said memo makes reference to the recording of names of Bargadars both under S. 50 of the Land Reforms Act and also under S. 51 of the aid Act. In the present case before us, the provisional settlement work, have been admittedly taken up within P. S. Basanti, District 24-Parganas. Therefore, we propose to consider what would be the appropriate interim order in the matter of recording of names of Bargadars according to the impugned order in the matter of recording of names of Bargadars according to the impugned memo in the revisional Records of Rights which are under preparation. Therefore, we propose to consider what would be the appropriate interim order in the matter of recording of names of Bargadars according to the impugned order in the matter of recording of names of Bargadars according to the impugned memo in the revisional Records of Rights which are under preparation. We make it clear that our order does not cover the case where the State is purporting to follow the aforesaid impugned memo dated 5th July 1978 in the matter of maintenance of record under S. 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. We express no opinion as to whether the directions in the aforesaid memo regarding the 'operation Barga' can be lawfully enforced in the matter of maintenance of record of rights under S. 50 of the Act. ( 7 ) THE appellants have claimed that 'operation Barga' is the name of the special programme launched for recording the names of bargadars. Undoubtedly it is for the State Government to formulate its policy for promoting the economic interests of bargadars. The State Government may in appropriate manner obtain information about the incidence of Bargadars in the different areas. But it is undisputed that the revision of Records of Rights must be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of West Bengal Land Reforms Act and Rules made by the State Government in this behalf. Sections 51 and 51a of the Act and Rules 22 to 27 and the Schedules A and B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 contains elaborate provisions relating to procedure for revising or preparing the Records of Rights. The impugned directives relating to 'operation Barga' are in the nature of administrative directions and the said memo dated 5th July, 1978 has no statutory force. The processes or the stages in the settlement operation have been laid down in the relevant statutory Rules. The Government by their administrative orders cannot change these processes. In case of any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act and the relevant Rules of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 on the one hand, and the directives of the State Government relating to 'operation Barga', on the other hand the statutory provisions must prevail and override the administrative directives. In case of any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act and the relevant Rules of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 on the one hand, and the directives of the State Government relating to 'operation Barga', on the other hand the statutory provisions must prevail and override the administrative directives. The State Government by issuing an executive flat cannot prepare or revise the Records of Rights contracts to the said statutory provisions. In fact, the paragraph (5) of the aforesaid Memo dated 5th July, 1978 on the subject of 'operation Barga' itself inter alia, recognised that the recording of Bargadars will have to be done under S. 51 of the Act. For this purpose steps were being taken to amend the Rules. In fact amendment of the same Rules have been subsequently made. ( 8 ) MR. Sadhan Gupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has placed before us two Government notifications respectively dated 9th September (published in the Gazette on 13th September, 1978 and 19th September, 1978) (published in the Gazette on 20th September, 1978 ). The State Government by the notification dated 9th September, 1978 has substituted Clause (1) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The other notification dated 19th September, 1978 inserted sub-rule (2) in Rule 21 of the said Rules. The Rule 21 relates to maintenance of Record of Rights under S. 50 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Therefore, we need not consider in this appeal, effect of the said notification dated 19th September, 1978. The petitioners of the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, have not challenged the writ of the said State Government Notification dated 9th September, 1978 by which the second proviso to Clause (1) of Schedule A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules was substituted and a new proviso was inserted. Therefore, we express no opinion regarding the vires of the said sub-rule (2) of Rule 21. We would presently refer to the said second proviso. ( 9 ) THE Rule 1 of Schedule A of West Bengal Land Reforms Rules specifies that the record of rights shall be revised or prepared by a Revenue Officer (i. e. any officer whom the State Govt. We would presently refer to the said second proviso. ( 9 ) THE Rule 1 of Schedule A of West Bengal Land Reforms Rules specifies that the record of rights shall be revised or prepared by a Revenue Officer (i. e. any officer whom the State Govt. may appoint by name or who by virtue of his office can discharge any of the functions of the Revenue officer in any area ). Secondly the different processes for revision and preparation of the records have been clearly described in detail. Undoubtedly, Items I to IV of the said processes mentioned in Rule 1 may be omitted or amalgamated with another with the previous permission of the State Government. In fact, we have referred to the State Government Notification dated 23rd December, 1974 regarding omission of traverse and cadastral survey and amalgamation of the preliminary record writing and the local inspection in revising the Record of Rights in the district of 24-Parganas. Prima facie any addition alteration or modification of the said process which are to be followed for the revision and preparation of records can be made by amendment of the relevant statutory provisions including Schedule A. Any administrative direction which purports to alter in any other manner the said processes would be prima facie not legal. Further, the Records of Rights are statement of rights and include not only the name of each person who is a raiyat or occupant of land or who is a Bargadar but also the other particulars set out in Rule 23. Entry or omission from Record of Rights have civil consequences, and the Record of Rights affect claims and questions relating to property rights and status of the person cultivating the land. Therefore, at the different stages of revision and preparation of records statutory provisions have been made for issuing proclamations, for giving of notices, for opportunity of hearing, before the various authorities, opportunity to file claims and objections and to apply for revision. But at the same time, it is necessary to point out the rules including the Schedule A do not contain one uniform procedure for issue of notices to persons interested also the manner of making claims and objections at the different stages and their disposal by the different authorities offer from one stage to another. But at the same time, it is necessary to point out the rules including the Schedule A do not contain one uniform procedure for issue of notices to persons interested also the manner of making claims and objections at the different stages and their disposal by the different authorities offer from one stage to another. It appears at some stages only general notices in the form of proclamations are required to be made. But at other stages personal notices are required to be given. It is necessary for us to set out the provisions relating to issue of proclamations and services of notice because the Rules with the appendix 'a' contain elaborate and explicit procedure for the same. ( 10 ) THE clause (ii) of the second proviso to the Rule 1 of Schedule A inserted by the aforesaid notification dated 9th September, 1978 which inter alia empower, the Revenue Officer to act either on his own motion or on the receipt of an application from others. But before recording the name of Bargadar the Revenue Officer is bound to hold enquiry and to give persons claiming as Bargadars and the owners of the land concerned such opportunity of being heard as the Revenue Officer may deem fit. Even in case, the names of a Bagadar or an occupier is recorded under the second proviso to Rule 1 of Appendix A, until the final publication of the said records, the entry prima facie would not have any statutory presumption of correctness in terms of S. 51a (9) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Secondly, the Revenue Officer under Explanation II to the second proviso of Rule 1 of Schedule A may issue a certificate only after he has held an enquiry under clause (ii) of the said second proviso and has given persons claiming as Bargadars and the owners such opportunity of being heard as the Revenue Officer may deem fit. A certificate under Explanation II shall be in the form prescribed by the State Government. We understand that the State Government proposes shortly to prescribe the said Form. ( 11 ) MR. Gupta at one stage submitted that the petitioners of the writ petition have no prima facie case. According to Mr. Gupta the notice (Annexure B) to the writ petition did not mention all the mouzas in which the petitioner's land may be situated. We understand that the State Government proposes shortly to prescribe the said Form. ( 11 ) MR. Gupta at one stage submitted that the petitioners of the writ petition have no prima facie case. According to Mr. Gupta the notice (Annexure B) to the writ petition did not mention all the mouzas in which the petitioner's land may be situated. Secondly he submitted that the petitioners of the writ petition do not allege that the respondents therein are attempting to record names of bargadars in the Khatians in respect of their land. At this interlocutory stage we are not prepared to hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is not very much disputed that these mouzas within Basanti Police Station have been chosen as 'priority pockets' and the State Government and its officers propose to conduct 'operation Bargas' in the said mouzas. Further a writ petition may be filed even in case of an apprehended or threatened injury or wrong. In this case the petitioners have alleged in this writ petition that the State and its officers are threatening to prepare and publish the Record of Rights in respect of their lands in contravention of the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the relevant Rules. These questions may be finally decided at the time of the disposal of the said Rule. At present a workable order should be passed. ( 12 ) IN the light of the above discussions we clarify the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th and 20th November, 1978 in the following manner: -RE: Paragraph (1) -the State Government has been already given liberty to determine, in accordance with law, claims and objections relating to the recording of Bargadars in the Record of Rights. The notice referred to in paragraph (1) of the order dated 17. 11. 1978 means such notice as the relevant provisions of law may require to be given. We have already pointed out that under the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules the manner of giving notices is not uniform. But, the particular mode of notice/notification/proclamation necessary at the particular stage or process for preparing and publishing records must be adhered to. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 29th November, 1978 himself has clarified this position. Subject to this clarification we maintain the Paragraph (1) of the order dated 17th November, 1978. RE: paragraph (2) -mr. But, the particular mode of notice/notification/proclamation necessary at the particular stage or process for preparing and publishing records must be adhered to. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 29th November, 1978 himself has clarified this position. Subject to this clarification we maintain the Paragraph (1) of the order dated 17th November, 1978. RE: paragraph (2) -mr. Sadhan Gupta, learned advocate for the appellants, has stated that the advice assistance of the local committees are not being obtained in the matter of preparation and publication of the records. The preparation and revision of the records are being made by the duly authorised officers in accordance with Chapter VII of the Act red with the Rules. RE: paragraph (3) -we modify the said directions. We direct that the disposal of prayers for recording of the name of Bargadars would be only in accordance with the Chapter VII read with the Chapter VII read with the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules and in particular the Schedule A. The statutory processes must (subject to their omission and/or amalgamation by necessary notification) be followed. In case of any dispute between the owners and the alleged bargadars regarding their relationship, harvesting, storage, thrashing, division and delivery of produce, the same may be decided in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In this connection reference may be made to the order dated 20 November, 1978 passed by the learned Single Judge. It would be also open to the appropriate authorities to take steps for prevention of breach of peace. RE: paragraphs (4) and (5) -no observation is made in this appeal about interim orders passed in other Rules because the same are not subject matter of the present appeal. ( 13 ) AT this stage we express no opinion on merits of the respective cases of the appellants and respondents. All actions taken by the parties and orders passed by the authorities during the pendency of this appeal should be subject to the decision in the appeal and without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The application filed on 5th Dec. 1978 is disposed on the above terms. B. C. Ray, J. : i agree. Application disposed of.