JUDGMENT (1.) AS, even inspite of the due service of the Rule which was made ready as regards service on 29th' August 1977, nobody appeared for the State of West Bengal or their authorities and I felt the need and assistance of some learned Advocate, who is conversant with the point as mentioned hereafter, on 14th August, 1980, i. e. during the course of the hearing of the case, I requested Mr. Susanta Kumar Kundu, to appear as Amicus Curiae and I must have it on record, the appreciation for the help and assistance which Mr. Kundu has rendered. The point of controversy in the instant case related to the character of the bhagchas officer viz. whether they are revenue Officer or Settlement Officers. It may be mentioned that in the West Bengal land Reforms Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) there is no definition of Bhagchas Officers. (2.) THE petitioner has claimed that the lands as mentioned in the petition, at all material times belonged to him. It is also his case that those lands have been duly recorded in his name in the R. S. records and he had no Bargadar. In fact, the lands as involved are his has lands and he has cultivated them by his own men and on due payment and supply of the necessary implements and materials. It is also his case, that one Mahatab Mondal, while alive, used to cultivate the lands initially, on execution of a Kabulayat which was dated 17th December, 1939. Such execution was in favour of Hemangini Debi, the mother of the petitioner. But thereafter, the lands were made khas by virtue of an auction purchase on 12th June, 1952, in' Rent Suit no. 967 of 1948, of the learned Second munsif's Court. Rampurhat, Birbhum. The petitioner has stated that by virtue of such purchase, he took possession through court on 10th July 1954 and since then, he is possessing and enjoying the lands, in the manner as mentioned above. It is the allegation of the petitioner that at the instance and instigation of the bhagchas Officer, Nalhati-ll, Birbhum, respondent no. Rampurhat, Birbhum. The petitioner has stated that by virtue of such purchase, he took possession through court on 10th July 1954 and since then, he is possessing and enjoying the lands, in the manner as mentioned above. It is the allegation of the petitioner that at the instance and instigation of the bhagchas Officer, Nalhati-ll, Birbhum, respondent no. 1, some persons created trouble and problems by making false claims as Bargadars of the lands in question and he was surprised to receive a notice dated 9th August 1976 issued by the said Respondent No. 1, purporting to initiate a proceeding, being case No. 32 of 1976. The petitioner has further alleged that the concerned notice has not even disclosed the relevant provisions of the said Act under which the same was issued. It is of course true that with the said notice, a copy of the application, was sent. The petitioner, on a reference to that application has stated that the allegations against him were that he was attempting or taking steps to evict the Bargadars in question, who are Respondent Nos. 5 to 11. There was a prayer in that application, for recording the names of these Bargadars. (3.) MR. Bagchi, appearing in support of the Rule, contented that the Bhagchas officer concerned, could determine the disputes as enumerated in section 18 of the said Act i.e. division or delivery of the produce, recovery of produce and termination of cultivation by Bargadar and furthermore unless the acts alleged, are completed acts, such officer, had or has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute in respect of apprehension of a breach. In short, such officer has no jurisdiction to make any prohibitory order. It was further contended that such bhagchas officer, not being Revenue office within the meaning of section 50 of the said Act, had also no jurisdiction and authority to record the names of the Respondents as mentioned above, as Bargadars. It should also be noted that in fact, the arguments as mentioned above, ware also put forward in the connected proceedings, as objections by the petitioner, apart from contending the claims of the Bargadars, as frivolous. Mr. It should also be noted that in fact, the arguments as mentioned above, ware also put forward in the connected proceedings, as objections by the petitioner, apart from contending the claims of the Bargadars, as frivolous. Mr. Bagchi also contended that the impugned order dated 10th July 1976, whereby the officer concerned has determined the character of the Respondents concerned as Bargadars was also without jurisdiction and inoperative as no civil or criminal Court had referred the case for such decision to the said officer. He also contended that since the allegations in the application by Bargadars, speak of a threat, so section 18 of the said Act had no application. In fact it is the specific submission of Mr. Bagchi that in view of the above, and since the application is silent about the section or sections viz. if the same was under section 18 or 21 and further more, when there was no reference under section 21, so, if at all, the determination was under section 50 of the said Act, and as such the officer concerned had no authority for the grounds as mentioned hereinbefore. (4.) THE affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case, which is dated 21st April 1977, has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 only. These respondents have claimed to be the Bargadars on the land for about fifteen years or more and the lands were cultivated by them and not by the petitioner as claimed. In fact, it has also been stated that these respondents were employed as Bargadars by the petitioner, on and from 1962 and since then, they are in possession of the lands. The other allegations in the petition have been denied. It has also been claimed that the petition is full of misstatements and is also bad for suppression of material facts. It is true that the application by the bargadars, has not mentioned the specific sections or section and there is no reference under section 21 ; so Mr. Bagchi was right and justified in contending that the determination as made, was perhaps under section 50 of the said Act. In fact, in view of the above, the determination of the question as mentioned above, became necessary and relevant. (5.) MR. Bagchi was right and justified in contending that the determination as made, was perhaps under section 50 of the said Act. In fact, in view of the above, the determination of the question as mentioned above, became necessary and relevant. (5.) MR. Kundu contended that if the bhagchas Officer in the instant case was not the Revenue Officer, then the determination as made, would be improper, inoperative and un authorised, it was his submission that if the Bhagchas Officer was the Revenue Officer and if so, then the determination, as made under section 50, would be proper. He also contended, on the facts of the case, that the determination was under section 50 of the said Act. Mr. Kundu also referred to the records as produced with the petition and claimed that if as construction of them, it is found that the character of the Bhagchas Officer was not that of a Revenue Officer or if he was not the Junior Land Reforms Officer, then this petition should succeed. He of course stated that he has not been able to find out any record establishing that Bhagchas officers are Revenue officers under section 50 of the said Act. (6.) MR. Bagchi, in fact, argued also to the above effect, apart from contending on reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977, the West Bengal Government Estates Manual, 1953, West Bengal Board's Miscellaneous Rules 1955, Technical Rules and instructions of Settlement, 1966 and West bengal Survey and Settlement Manual, 1935, that since Bhagchas Officers have neither been mentioned in the categories of revenue Officers or Settlement officers, they cannot be determined to be either, and as such entire action as taken, in making the determinations in this case, was improper and unauthorised. Mr. Kundu also made a reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977, for establishing the fact that Bhagchas Officers are neither Revenue Officers nor Settlement Officers. Mr, Kazi Mohamad All of course could not throw much light on the aspect as mentioned above and which was required to be determined. It should also be noted that apart from the statutes and the relevant provisions as contained therein, Mr. Bagchi also referred to Memo. No. 7424 (15)-GE dated 7th April, 1967 as issued to the authorities mentioned therein by the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, on the subject of Bargadars. It should also be noted that apart from the statutes and the relevant provisions as contained therein, Mr. Bagchi also referred to Memo. No. 7424 (15)-GE dated 7th April, 1967 as issued to the authorities mentioned therein by the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, on the subject of Bargadars. I direct the copy of the Memo, as produced to be Kept in the record. The Copy of the Memo as appears, was sent to the bhagchas Officer and also Junior Land reforms Officers the Settlement Charge officers, the Subdivisional Land Reforms officers, amongst others. Since such memo was sent to the Bhagchas officers and also to the other officers as mentioned above, on a reference to the same, Mr. Bagchi supplemented his argument, that Bhagchas officers are neither revenue Officers nor Settlement officers, as according to him, if they were so, then the memo in question, could not have been addressed to them. In short, Mr. Bagchi contended that since Bhagchas Officers are neither shown as Revenue Officers or as settlement Officers and in fact since they have been separately shown as such officers along with the Revenue and Settlement officers, it cannot but be held that the bhagchas Officers are neither Revenue officers nor Settlement Officers. "revenue Officers" are defined in section 2 (12) of the said Act, as any officer whom the State Government may appoint, by name or by virtue of his office to discharge any of the functions of a Revenue in any area. Under the several provisions of the said Act, powers may be exercised by such officer or authority as State government may appoint or by the Revenue officers, specially empowered. Section 50 contemplates a machinery for keeping or maintaining the upto date record or rights, with necessary charges incorporated in terms of clauses (a) to (f) thereunder. As observed in the case of Samsul -vs- State of west Bengal (1977) 2. CLJ 346, specific authorisation to the Revenue Officers would be necessary and in terms of the determinations in the case of Santosh Khuku -Vs-State of West Bengal 1976 CHN 250, a mere circular by the Board of Revenue, would not be enough. As observed in the case of Samsul -vs- State of west Bengal (1977) 2. CLJ 346, specific authorisation to the Revenue Officers would be necessary and in terms of the determinations in the case of Santosh Khuku -Vs-State of West Bengal 1976 CHN 250, a mere circular by the Board of Revenue, would not be enough. It appears that by a notification dated 21st August, 1975, which is to the following effect :- "in exercise of the power conferred by clause (12) of Section 2 of the West Bengal land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act 1 of 1956) the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint all Junior Land Reforms Officers in the State of West Bengal to discharge, within their respective jurisdictions, the functions of a Revenue Officer under Section 50 of the said Act. 2. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 50 of the said Act, the Governor is further pleased hereby to especially empower the said Revenue Officer for the purposes of the said section," All the Junior Land Reforms Officers of the State have been empowered to record under section 50 of the said Act. This notification, in the case of Go u r Mohan Salus -vs- State of West Bengal 1978 (1) CLJ 32, to which reference was made by Mr. Bagchi, has been found to be prospective and as such, the action taken in that case, which was on 7th december, 1972, was set aside. It has, also been observed by me in the case of panehanan Parik -vs- State of West Bengal 80 CWN 296, which judgment was delivered on 8th December 1975, that any general empowering authorisation would not be sufficient. In that case, I had taken the view that the word ''any" proceeding the words "of the functions" in section 2 (12) of the said Act, does not mean that when a Revenue Officer is appointed as such, for any other section (in that case for section 33), he would at once become the revenue officer, in terms of the requirements of the said Act, for purposes and more particularly for all the sections, whenever such appointment is needed or mentioned (in that case for section 50), in the absence of a special authorisation. It should be mentioned that the general notification as mentioned above, even though it was of a date earlier than the judgment, was not produced by the learned advocates appearing. Thus, in view of the determinations as above and the specific authorisation, the Junior Land Reforms Officer would be entitled and authorised to take steps under section 50. But the above answer would not be enough, unless the character of the Bhagchas officers as revenue Officers, is found. A Junior Land reforms Officer and a Bhagchas Officer, in some cases, may be the same person If such evidence was available in this case, then perhaps, the action as taken, could have been found to be in order, without any further investigation, as in that case, the Bhagchas officer as he is also the junior Land Reforms officer, would have become a Revenue Officer, in view of the notification. But, such and necessary evidence is absent in this case. It was of course sought to be contended at the Bar that there is notification declaring Bhagchas officers as Revenue Officers. Bhag according to Wilson's Glossary means a share, a part, a portion, a share in kind, tax, duty, the share of the Government, share or portion of inheritance and a "bhagcnas" according to the determinations in the case of Ram Charan -vs- Madan mohan, A. I. R. 1932 Cal 195, is a person some where between a hired servant and a partner in these cases, at all events where he has not been given an interest in the land so as to make him a tenant. "revenue" under the said Act means, whatever is lawfully payable or deliverable in money or in kind or both by a Rayat under the provisions of the Act in respect of land held by him. Since there is no definition of "bhagch-as Officer" in the said Act, it may, on the basis of the meaning of Bhag and bhagchasi, be deduced that Bhagchas officers, are such officers, who deal with the disputes relating to Bhag or Bhag produce and Bhagchasis, and as such, they may be Revenue Officers. Since there is no definition of "bhagch-as Officer" in the said Act, it may, on the basis of the meaning of Bhag and bhagchasi, be deduced that Bhagchas officers, are such officers, who deal with the disputes relating to Bhag or Bhag produce and Bhagchasis, and as such, they may be Revenue Officers. But the notification dated 21st August 1975 would not help the authorities in this case, as by such notification, all Junior land Reforms Officers, in exercise of powers empowered by section 2 (12) of the said Act, were appointed by the governor, to discharge the functions of revenue officers under Section 50, in respect of the area within their jurisdiction and the Revenue officers, so employed powered viz the Junior Land Reforms officers, as authorised, only were further specially empowered, to exercise the powers of the Revenue Officers under the Section and none else. As mentioned above, if the Bhagchas Officer in the instant case was also the Junior land Reforms Officer, then the action as taken, could have been justified and authorised. But since no legal evidence to the above respect is available, there is no' other way but to hold that the bhagchas officer concerned had received no authority to act as Revenue officer or he was clothed with such authority. Following the reasons and determinations in the case of Panehanan v. State of West Bengal (Supra), I thus hold that without due and necessary authority, empowering the Bhagchas officers as Revenue Officers, they would have no jurisdiction or authority to act under section 50 of the said Act or to initiate proceedings there under, unless such officers are also the Junior Land reforms officers, specially empowered. (7.) IN view of the above, the Rule succeeds and the same is thus made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let appropriate writ be issued. The order as proposed will not of course prejudice the respondents, if they want or are so advised, to initiate proceedings afresh and to make appropriate determinations in accordance with law.