ORDER In this Rule the legality and/or validity of the initiation of a proceeding by the Bhagchas Officer, Jaynagar, Circle II under S 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act is under challenge. The petitioner contends that the said Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application under S. 18(1) read with S. 18 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act because the applicant Jyotish Chandra Pramanik was not a recorded bargadar. 2. Mr. Mukherjee also contends that it appears from the order sheet that the Bhagchas Officer himself caused a spot enquiry but such power has not been given to the said officer to hold a spot enquiry and as such the proceeding has been vitiated and it should be quashed. 3. Mr. Mondal, the learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that for the purposes of disposal of the application under S. 18(1) of the Act, an officer may be required to hold spot enquiry and such power must be held to be inherent in S. 18 of the Land Reforms Act. In my view, the said contention cannot be accepted. Such exercise of power cannot be held to be incidental to the power to dispose of the disputes under S. 18 of the Land Reforms Act. If a reference to S. 57 of the Act is made, it will be found that specifically some of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure have been given to the officers under the Land Reforms Act for discharging their statutory duties and functions under the Act but the power to hold spot enquiry by the Bhagchas Officer has not been expressly given. The Bhagchas Officer can take evidence to be adduced by the parties for the purpose of disposal of the case but I am afraid he is not entitled to himself hold spot enquiry and decide the case on the basis of his own finding on such spot enquiry. In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that the court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise. It is a settled law of the land that the said rule does not entitle a Judge to put his own view on inspect on in the place of evidence. It is a settled law of the land that the said rule does not entitle a Judge to put his own view on inspect on in the place of evidence. The purpose of such inspection is only to enable him to appreciate the evidence that the parties might adduce and test its accuracy. It cannot by itself form the basis of the judgment until the parties agree to it. The aforesaid principles laid down in a number of judicial decisions of different High Courts, in my view, are based on a sound logic that in the case of Judge's observations on such inspection, the parties never get a chance either of cross-examining him or setting right his views if they are found to be erroneous. After all a Judge should not himself be a witness and judge to a cause. In the aforesaid circumstances, the adjudication made by the Bhagchas Officer is set aside and application under S. 18(1) is directed to be heard afresh in accordance with law. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel submitted that when through misconception the Bhagchas Officer has already caused a spot enquiry and consequently formed his opinion there is every likelihood that he may be influenced by his own inspection even at the hearing after remand. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that in such circumstances it is only desirable that any other Bhagchas Officer in the locality or in the neighboring area should proceed with the case. There is enough force in the said contention of Mr. Mukherjee and it is true that justice will not only be done but it must also appear to have been done. It appears that under Rule 6A the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules, the officer empowered under S. 6A has a right to direct for order of transfer of a Bhagchas case from the court of one Bhagchas Officer to the court of another. Bhagchas Officer and in the aforesaid facts, it is only reasonably expected that if the petitioner makes an application before such authority under S 6A for transfer of the instant Bhagchas case to any other Bhagchas Officer either in the locality or in the neighboring area, such application will be considered by the said authority under Rule 6A. Bhagchas Officer and in the aforesaid facts, it is only reasonably expected that if the petitioner makes an application before such authority under S 6A for transfer of the instant Bhagchas case to any other Bhagchas Officer either in the locality or in the neighboring area, such application will be considered by the said authority under Rule 6A. The petitioner is given liberty to make an application for transfer of the said Bhagchas case before the prescribed authority under Rule 6A within three weeks from today and after the disposal of the said application under Rule 6A, the concerned Bhagchas Officer will proceed with the hearing of the case after giving notice to both the parties in accordance with law. As the petitioner will get an opportunity to raise objections both on the merits of the case and also on the question of maintainability of the said proceeding before the Bhagchas Officer, it is not necessary at this stage to express any opinion on the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Rule about the merits of the case and/or on the question of maintainability of such proceeding and the said contentions are kept open. By consent of the parties, this Rule is treated as if on today's list and is disposed of accordingly but there will be no order as to costs. Rule disposed of. Petitioner given liberty to apply for transfer of the case.