ORDER: Against an adjudication made by the Bhagchas Officer specially empowered under sub-s. (2) of S. 18 of the Land Reforms Act, inter alia, holding that the respondent No.5, Ratan Fulmani is a bargadar under the petitioners, this writ petition has been moved. The petitioners contend that already a civil suit has been instituted by the petitioners wherein the petitioners have also obtained an interim order of injul1ctiun against the said respondent No.5 and the said Civil Suit is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. The petitioners contended that the respondent No. 5 was quite entitled to raise a dispute by claiming his right as a bargadar in the, said civil suit and to have a Reference under S. 21(3) of Land Reforms Act, but instead of doing so he made an application before the Bhagchas Officer inter alia raising a dispute was made by the land-owner. On such application, the said Bhagchas Case No. 19 of 1979 was initiated by the Bhagchas Officer, Raghunathganj-I. The petitioners also contended that no application under S. 18(2) of the Land Reforms Act could have been made before the said Bhagchas Officer because no dispute within the meaning of S. 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act was raised. They also contended that in any event. when the said civil suit was pending adjudication it was the duty on the part of the respondent No. 5 to raise. They also contended that in any event. when the said civil suit was pending adjudication it was the duty on the part of the respondent No. 5 to raise a dispute about barga cultivations in the said civil suit and not to make an independent application before the Bhagchas Court, In my view, under S. 18 of the Land Reforms Act, no proceeding can be initiated for mere declaration of barga right but if a dispute within the meaning of S. 18(1) is made and it becomes necessary for the purpose of disposal of the said dispute or otherwise to decide whether one of the parties is a bargadar or not, then the Bhagchas Officer has jurisdiction to determine the right of barga cultivation by the concerned party under S. 18(2) of the Land Reforms Act. 2. 2. I have considered the application made by the Bargadar and it appears to me that in substance he raised the dispute that the land owner was not accepting him as a bargadar thereby denying his right to cultivate in bhag which virtually amounts to termination of bhag cultivation and in the written objection filed by the land owner it is quite clear that the land owner disputed the right of the applicant as a bargadar. In my view, in appreciating the application made by the bargadar, the court must not take a pedantic outlook but must look to the pith and substance of the application for the purpose of finding as to whether in substance a dispute as to the right of bhag cultivation consequent upon the denial of such right by the land owner was raised or not. It should be borne in mind that the application has been made by a poor bargadar with no literacy or a very poor literacy and the very purpose of beneficial legislation will be frustrated if a vary strict and technical interpretation is put to the application made by a bargadar. As the landlord denied that the applicant was a bargadar under him there was a necessary to determine as to whether the said applicant was a bargadar or not and as such the Bhagchas Officer was quite competent to decide the dispute as to whether the applicant was a bargadar or not under S. 18(2) of the Land Reforms Act. It does not appear to me that simply because a civil suit was instituted by the pretend petitioners against the respondent No. 5, wherein the respondent No.5 could make an application under S. 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act raising a dispute as to bhag cultivation, the Bhagchas Officer lacked in his jurisdiction to decide the said dispute raised before him in the aforesaid bhagchas proceeding. If an application raising a dispute within the meaning of S. 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act is made before a competent bhagchas as officer, such officer having exclusive jurisdiction to decide such dispute, has not only the right to dispose of the case filed before him but also a duty to decide the case as early as practicable. If an application raising a dispute within the meaning of S. 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act is made before a competent bhagchas as officer, such officer having exclusive jurisdiction to decide such dispute, has not only the right to dispose of the case filed before him but also a duty to decide the case as early as practicable. If in the meantime, a reference made by a civil or criminal court on the same question as to existence of barga right of a party remains pending then on the ground of expediency the Bhagchas Officer should await adjudication of such reference but it cannot he held that he inherently lacked in his jurisdiction to decide the bhagchas case pending before him. In the instant case, no reference under S. 21 (3) of the Land Reforms Act was made by any civil or criminal court and as such the question of staying the bhagchas proceeding on the ground of expediency did not arise in the instant case. As the adjudication made by the Bhagchas Officer can be challenged in appeal, I do nor want to interfere at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that as on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction, the instant writ petition was intended to be moved, no appeal was preferred by the petitioners and in he special facts of the case, leave should be granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the adjudication made by the Bhagchas Officer. There is force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the special facts of the case, leave is granted to the petitioners to prefer an appeal within three weeks from today before the Appellate Tribunal against the adjudication made by the Bhagchas Officer. If such appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of such appeal on merits. 3. The application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of with direction.