JUDGMENT Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. Mrs. Maitm undertakes to file Memo. of Appearance on behalf of the respondents by today. Accept the same. Putting in of requisites for service of notice is accordingly dispensed with. Filing of paper books is dispensed with. The appeal and the application, by consent, are treated as on today's list for hearing. 2. The appellant-petitioner has obtained a Civil Rule challenging the authority of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Hooghly to hold a proceeding under S. 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Sub-divisional Officer. Sadar North, has called upon the appellant-petitioner to establish his claim to get raiyati settlement of the plots, mentioned in the impugned Memos The learned Single Judge has refused the ,appellant's prayer for interim order of stay of the said proceedings before the Sub-divisional Officer Sadar, Hooghly. Hence this appeal has been filed. 3. Mrs. Mukti Maitra, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, has placed before us two Notifications issued by the Government of West Bengal, Land Utilisation and Reforms and Land and Land Revenue Department, Land Reforms Branch Notification No. 15952-L. Ref./2A-25/72 dated 26th October. 1972 under S.2(12) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and No. 109-L Ref 12A-25/72 dated 13th January, 1978. The Governor has purported to appoint, by the said two Notifications the Sub-divisional Officers and also the Additional Sub-divisional Officers as Revenue Officers under S.49(2) of the Act within the local limits of their jurisdictions. The appellant-petitioner has not challenged the validity of these Notifications. Further, the State Government by Notification No. 15954-L.Ref/2A-25/72 dated October 26, 1972 had specified the Additional District Magistrate to be the authority to whom an appeal against an order under S. 49(2) of the Land Reforms Act may be preferred. In the above view we arc not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge refusing the prayer for interim orders in the Civil Rule in question. 4. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal. We, however, express no opinion on the merits of the pending Civil Rule. Any order made by the Sub-divisional Officer in the impugned proceeding will be, however, subject to the decision in the Rule. 5. The application and the appeal are disposed of without costs. B. C. Ray, J. I agree. Application and appeal dismissed.