ORDER The subject matter of challenge in C. R. 2254 (W) of 1976 is a proceeding under S. 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acqn. Act (B. R. Case No. 456 of 1972) against the petitioner. The petitioner in C. R. 2255 (W) 1976 claims to be a transferee from the petitioner of C. R. 2254 (W) of 1976. Unless the petitioner of C. R. 2254 (W) 1976, Abdul Khalek Mondal, can establish that he had been allowed to retain the lands some of which were subsequently transferred, the petitioner in C. R. 2255 (W) 1976 cannot derive any title by purchase from Abdul Khalek Mondal. 2. The respondents had started the said B. R. Case No. 456 of 1972 in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to retain his khas lands in terms of the different clauses of sub-s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act. The petitioner had filed statement in Form 1 and return in Form B. In his B form the petitioner had claimed that tanks recorded in dag no. 1112 khatian No. 353, mouza Atagar, dag no. 38 khatian no. 435 and dag No. 1097, khatian No. 432 also of mouza Atagar recorded as tanks were retainable as tank fisheries under S. 6(1)(e) of the Act. 3. The Revenue Officer, by his order dated 28th November, 1975 had rejected the said contention and had held that the said plots being classified as tanks with right of irrigation should be taken as agricultural lands. 4. The short point in this Rule is whether or not the Revenue Officer had acted in accordance with law by holding that tanks with the remark "……………" were agricultural lands under S. 6(1)(d) of the West Bengal Estates Acqn. Act. 5. In my view, every tank is not necessarily a tank fishery within the meaning of S. 6(1)(e) unless the conditions mentioned in the explanation to said clause (e) are fulfilled. In the instant case the Revenue Officer was not apparently satisfied that the terms of the said explanation were satisfied in respect of the tanks in question. But the Revenue Officer made an error apparent on the face of record when he held that a plot recorded as a tank should be always taken to be an agricultural land merely because in the remark column of the record of rights the words "………….." were written. But the Revenue Officer made an error apparent on the face of record when he held that a plot recorded as a tank should be always taken to be an agricultural land merely because in the remark column of the record of rights the words "………….." were written. Such right of irrigation at best is claimed by owners of other neighbouring plots. Such right may be in the nature of an easement or a customary right. But such encumbrance does not necessarily convert a tank into an agricultural land. It is settled law in this Court that a tank is to be ordinarily considered as a non-agricultural land within the meaning of S. 6(1)(e) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The learned Advocate for the State has not disputed this legal position. Therefore, I propose to direct a rehearing of the B. R. Case so that the tanks included in the B form submitted by the petitioner may be allowed to be retained as non-agricultural lands. 6. I accordingly make this Rule absolute in part and quash the order dated 28th November, 1975 and all consequential orders passed in B. R. Case No. 456 of 1972. I command the respondents not to treat the tanks in question included in the petitioners's B form as agricultural lands. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to retain the said tanks as non-agricultural lands under S. 6(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue Officer will again pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in respect of the B form submitted by the petitioner. Re: C. R. 2255(W) of 1976 7. This Rule is also disposed of with the direction that in case Abdul Khalek Mondal is allowed to retain the land transferred in favour of Md. Ali, the respondents will not treat the said transferred lands as having vested in the State. This order does not affect the claims and questions relating to retention and vesting of the lands which are subject matter of the two Rules under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The said question may be separately considered in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs. Rules made absolute.