JUDGMENT P.C. Borooah J: On December 6, 1976 the petitioner Ananta Kumar Naskar claiming to be the bargadar in respect of certain lands in mouza Krishnapur within police station Mandir Bazar, in the district of 24-Parganas, filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, alleging. inter alia that the opposite parties had on November 29, 1976 cut and removed the paddy grown on the said land by the petitioner. Cognizance was duly taken and charges were framed under Ss 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties filed an application before the learned Magistrate disputing the question that the petitioner was the bargadar in respect of the cultivated lands and praying for a reference to the Bhag Chas Officer under S. 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter the Act) for determination whether the petitioner was a bargadar or not. The learned Magistrate accordingly by an order dated May 3, 1978 made a reference to the local Bhag Chas Officer under S. 21(3) of the Act for determination of the question as to whether the complainant was a bargadar in respect of the case lands or not and to convey his decision to him by June 13, 1978. This order is the subject matter of challenge in this Rule. 2. This Rule initially came up for hearing before Monoj Kumar Mukherjee J. and the learned Judge by an order dated March 8, 1979 has referred this case 10 the Division Bench is he was of the view that an important question of law was involved. 3. Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it was not 'necessary for the learned Magistrate to make reference to the Bhag Chas Officer under S. 21(3) of the Act to determine the question in issue in the case started on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, namely, whether the accused opposite parties had committed theft of the paddy grown by the petitioner? Mr. Mr. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties has, on the other hand submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in making the reference to the Bhag Chas Officer as it was essential to determine the question as to whether the complainant was the bargadar in respect of the case lands or not and' whether he had a legal right to grow the padpy. thereon Mr. Mahato appearing on behalf of the State, has supported Mr. Panda’s contentions. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that the accused opposite parties had cut and taken away the paddy grown on certain lands over which be claimed barga rights. In order to decide whether the accused opposite parties had committed theft of paddy grown by the petitioner, it was not necessary to determine as to whether the petitioner had the legal right to grow paddy on the said lands as a bargadar. As such it was not necessary on the part of the learned Magistrate to make a reference to the Bhag Chas Officer under S. 21(3) of the Act. We therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remand the case back to him. The learned Magistrate will decide the question regarding theft of paddy after deciding as to who had actually grown the same the learned Magistrate will refrain from going into the question whether the petitioner had any legal right to the said lands as a bargadar or not. The Rule is made absolute. Let the records be sent down as expeditiously as possible. B.N. Maitra J: I agree. Rule made absolute.