ORDER This Rule, was obtained with the corresponding interim order for stay of operation of the under as impeached, on 20th December 1976 and even though the Rule was made ready as regards service on 18th June 1981 and an appearance was entered for the respondents as indicated above, at the time of hearing of the same, nobody either appeared, or opposed the prayers as made or even asked for opportunities to file any return to the Rule. It should be noted that the Rule, for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 3rd August 1979, has been discharged against respondents Nos. 3 and 5, Sarbashree Biraj Mohan Das and Tamradhawaj Mallick and it was contended by Mr. Maity that such discharge of the Rule, will have no adverse effect to the maintainability of the same or the determinations to be made. 2. It has been stated that the father of the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Chandra Das (since deceased) was a recorded Bargadar, in respect of plot No. 1740, measuring 64 acres of Khation No. 260 of Mouza Barbari, P.S. Sutahata, Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) under respondent No. 9 Shri lswar Damodar Jew Thakur and it was their specific averment that the concerned Record of Rights was finally published. It has also been claimed that as per family agreement on the death of the said Shri Ramesh Chandra Das, the petitioner No. 1, Shri Gostha Behari Das, was determined or nominated and elected to be the Bargadar and he continued the cultivation of the said lands. It has been alleged that as such, petitioner No. 2, Shri Binod Behari Das had or has no connection in respect of them. It has also been alleged that the petitioner No.1, as such, continued cultivation and the respondent No.9, taking advantage of the death of Ramesh Chandra Das, the father, tried to evict the petitioner's from their right of or as Bargadar, with the help of and connivance with one Shri Arjun Chandra Ghose, respondent No.8. It has also been alleged that the petitioner No.1, as such, continued cultivation and the respondent No.9, taking advantage of the death of Ramesh Chandra Das, the father, tried to evict the petitioner's from their right of or as Bargadar, with the help of and connivance with one Shri Arjun Chandra Ghose, respondent No.8. This respondent No.8, according to the petitioners, threatened to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the said lands by the petitioners and in fact, on or about 19th July, 1970 he rook away the plough and other articles and belongings of the petitioners and as such, proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, was duly filed and initiated against him in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk. It has been alleged that at that, the said respondent No.8, finding no other alternative, initiated a false case before the Junior Land Reforms Officer, respondent No. 1, ,on 20th July 1976, for recording his name as a Bargadar in respect of the said lands, alleging falsely that he had cultivated them for the last 22/23 years. Such proceeding was registered as No. 58(B.R.) of 1976-77. It has been claimed by the petitioners that their father was in possession of the said lands by delivering owner's share of produce to the respondent No 9, apart from making other relevant and necessary payments to the State. It has been claimed that thereafter, there was an enquiry by the Circle Inspector concerned, respondent No.2 and it was found and established in that enquiry that 2/3 of the said lands, measuring more or less 43 acres, was cultivated by the petitioners and 21 acres was cultivated by Respondent No.8. The petitioners have alleged that the respondent J.L.R.O. with a biased and preconceived mind and notion, made the relevant report in the 144 proceedings as mentioned above. 3. It has been stated that thereafter the respondent J.L.R.O. by his order dated 25th October 1976, observed that as the Block Level Land reforms Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the said Committee), found the said lands were cultivated by respondent No.8, even though the Record of Rights stood in the name of the father of the petitioners, for the year under consideration 1/3rd portion of the north eastern side was cultivated by the respondent No. 8, amongst some other portions of the said lands as mentioned in the petition. The said respondent No. 8, was also found to be the Bargadar in respect of the lands in question and accordingly directed his name to be recorded as such in the relevant records establishing such fact were finally published in terms of the provisions of S. 44(4) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, so the presumptions attached to them unless duly rebutted must and should prevail. It was contended that the respondent No. 1, J.L.R.O. was not specially empowered under S. 50 of the said Act, making provisions for maintenance of the record of right. 4. It was claimed that even if the J.L.R.O concerned was specially empowered under S. 50 of the said Act, there was no evidence establishing how the recorded Bargadar in this case was evicted. In any event, it was contended that in the absence of any legal evidence on such aspect, the recordings as made or directed to be made in favour of respondent No.8, was improper, raid, unauthorised and without jurisdiction, apart form being illegal. The petitioners further claimed that in view of Chapter III of the said Act, dealing with Bargadars or which gives statutory protection to them, the respondent No.8 could not have been recorded as Bargadar in preference to the existing Bargadars and in the manner, as was done and as such, whatever action was initiated, proposed or suggested at the instance or behest of the said Committee, was irregular, illegal, void and inoperative. It was specifically claimed that petitioners No. 1, on due election, or nomination, gained that character in accordance with law. It was claimed that the respondent No. 8 manufactured and fabricated false receipts for the purpose of establishing his case and to disprove the claim of Bargadarship of the petitioners. It was also claimed that the petitioner was entitled to have his right as Bargadar, protected in law and in fact, there was such legal right existing and available. The validity of the formation of the said Committee or the legality and authority of the same has been denied and disputed. It has been asserted that the said body had or has not legal sanction, in matters like the present one and as such the determinations made on the basis of their recommendations, were improper, invalid and raid. The validity of the formation of the said Committee or the legality and authority of the same has been denied and disputed. It has been asserted that the said body had or has not legal sanction, in matters like the present one and as such the determinations made on the basis of their recommendations, were improper, invalid and raid. That apart, the authority of the respondent No. 1, J.L.R.O., to act under S. 50 of the said Act, has also been denied and disputed. 5. Even though the Rule was made ready on the date as mentioned hereinbefore, as mentioned above, none of the respondents appeared and opposed the prayers as made. In fact, no opposition has been filed by any of the respondents. Thus, the averments in the petition have gone without any challenge or contradiction and there is no bar for the Court to look into or consider them. 6. In tile case of Ahadi Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, 78 CWN 819, it has already been observed in the facts of that case, that the Junior Land Reforms Officer has no business to consult the Block Level Reforms Advisory Committee for the purpose of the settlement of Khas lands of the Government as that Committee has not been appointed under S. 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act nor is such a Committee a statutory body whose resolution is binding on the Junior Land Reforms Officer. Since it was thought, that after such determination, changes have been made in the said Act giving a character to the said Committee, Mr. Maity, on a reference to the provisions of the said Act and the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said Manusal), claimed and contended that the conferment or devolution of character or statutory recognition to the said Committee, if any, was foe purposes other than settlement of lands with Bargadars or declaring them as such and in cases of the present nature, from a given date viz. 21st January 1975, when sub-Rule 3(a) of Rule 20A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, was substituted in the following terms : (3a) For the purpose of such of settlement the Collector or the Additional District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Officer may consider the recommendations of the Land Reforms Advisory Committees as have already been set up or as may hereinafter be set up at the block level under orders of the Board of Revenue : Provided, that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Collector or the Additional District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer may dispense with or disregard such recommendation or refer any Case back to the committee for reconsideration, by Notification No. 1972. L.Ref/20R 10/74, which was published in the Extraordinary issues of the Calcutta Gazette dated 22nd January 1975. This cannot be denied that the father of the petitioners was a recorded Bargadar and the recording of the name of respondent No.8, who was claimed to be an outsider, which was initially directed, was ultimately made on 25th October 1976 and all the time, under instructions of or consultation with said the Committee or under their support. Mr. Maity claimed that Rule 20A (3a) was intended and meant for matters specified under S. 49 of the said Act, which lays down the principles of distribution of lands and to support such submissions, be referred to the contents in Rules 62 and 63 of the said manual, which deal with distribution of lands and lays down the functions of the said Committee, and are to the following effect : – 62. As soon as the eligibility list is approved all the available lands shall be distributed in the order of priority in the eligibility list. The order of priority may be by-passed only in cases where the lands are in occupation by eligible persons and their names ocour in the eligibility list. The area of land to be distributed to any person shall be subject to the minimum and maximum limit, laid down in sub-rule (3) of rule 20 (A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules. 1965. Any recommendations made by the Land Reforms Advisory Committee in the matter of distribution of lands should be considered. The area of land to be distributed to any person shall be subject to the minimum and maximum limit, laid down in sub-rule (3) of rule 20 (A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules. 1965. Any recommendations made by the Land Reforms Advisory Committee in the matter of distribution of lands should be considered. If the recommendation of the Land Reforms Advisory Committee goes against the existing policy of the Government, the Collector or the A.D M. or the S.D.O. shall refer the case to the Committee for reconsideration stating the reasons clearly. If even after reconsideration, the Committee sticks to its previous recommendations and the Collector or the A.D.M. or the S.D.O. is not satisfied, he may disregard such recommendations and proceed to distribute the land on the basis of the eligibility list. 63. The functions of the Block Level Reforms Advisory Committee are as detailed below : – (i) to assist the officers in the preparation of eligibility list in their respective areas and to make recommendation for distribution of lands in conformity with the existing rules and instructions; (ii) to associate in the matter of conciliation of agrarian dispute especially arising in connection with sowing and harvesting of crops-as between land owners and bargadars as also between rival claimants of the crops on the same land : (iii) such other matters as the Board of Revenue or Government may from time to time specify. For the purpose of distribution of vested lands at least one meeting of the Land Reforms Advisory Committee should be convened every month. The Collector or the ADM or the S.D.O. shall, however, proceed to finalise the distribution programme if two successive meetings of the Land Reforms Advisory Committee are not held for Jack of quorum or otherwise. They may also take such action as may be considered appropriate even in the matter which is normally referred to the Land Reforms Advisory Committee for advice or recommendations, where they are of the opinion that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the exigencies of administration. Proceeding of the meeting must be recorded and the Minute Book maintained. 7. Proceeding of the meeting must be recorded and the Minute Book maintained. 7. It is no doubt that the said manual deals with the principles, policy and procedure for management of lands and sairati interest viz hats, ferries and fisheries and replaces the West Bengal Government Estates Manual, 1953, and the rules regarding management of agricultural lands as incorporated in the said manual, have been framed in conformity with the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the said Act. It was contended by Mr. Maity that the Rules of the said manual as quoted hereinbefore, have thus nothing to do with the Bargadars. 8. Apart from provisions of the said Act and the said manual as mentioned above, in support of his submissions, Mr. Maity referred to a determination dated 5th December 1979, in the case of Nihar Bala Giri v. State of West Bengal 1910(1) CHN 477. From the date of the determination it would appear that the same was made after incorporation of Rule 20A(3a). In that case, the Bhagchas Officer issuing a memo to the petitioner called upon him to take delivery of the owner’s share of paddy deposited by one Banamali who claimed to be the bargadar in respect of particular plots of land belonging to the petitioner. By another memo the Junior Land Reforms Officer purported to convey to the Sub-Divisional Officer his decision that Banamali as a bargadar had cultivated three plots of land mentioned in the memo. The petitioner challenged by the writ petition the said two memos, and on such facts, it has been observed that the Bhagchas Officer in allowing Banamali to make the deposit of paddy under S. 16(4) of the Act did not adjudicate whether or not Banamali was really a bargadar under the petitioner. By reason of making such deposit Banamali could not and did not acquire any right. There was no scope for any adjudication under S.16 of the claims of Banamali that he was a bargadar and that the petitioner had refused to accept the owner’s share of the produce tendered by him. The point whether Banamali was really a bargadar, in necessary, may be adjudicated in appropriate proceeding in appropriate manner unless such adjudication has been already made, apart from holding that the memos cannot be said to be an adjudication under Ch.III of the Act. The point whether Banamali was really a bargadar, in necessary, may be adjudicated in appropriate proceeding in appropriate manner unless such adjudication has been already made, apart from holding that the memos cannot be said to be an adjudication under Ch.III of the Act. The Junior Land Reforms Officer did not himself make the decision as he had stated “the matter has been discussed in the L.R.A.C. at its meeting dated 29.9.73 and the Committee approved of the findings”. The Advisory Committee which had no statutory recognition was incompetent to either determine the question whether Banamali was a bargadar or to approve of the finding in this behalf by any other authority. The determinations was made without any authority. 9. In view of the provisions as mentioned above and even if the said manual had or has any force, the said Committee, in my view, and that too in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Maity, had no right, authority, jurisdiction and competence to deliberate on the recording of Bargadars or recommending such recording and as such, the reference of the matter to the said Committee, in their meeting of 6th August 1975 by the order dated 4th August 1975 as impeached, for their recommendation, was improper and not authorised or legal. Such reference was made by the respondent No. 1, J.L.R.O. That apart, recording of the Bargadar as was sought to be made on the advice or recommendations or at the instance of the said Committee was improper, unauthorised, irregular, void and inoperative in the facts of the case, as the said Committee, if at all, had no power to have such recommendations made, even on the basis of the terms of the said manual as quoted hereinbefore. They may have some powers and rights as specified under the said manual, which would not certainly include the right to declare a Bargadar but they may include amongst others to render assistance or to give advice in the matter of distribution of lands. There is also no legal evidence available in this case that the respondent No. 1, J.L.R.O, was specially empowered under S. 50 of the said Act. Even though such and relevant facts have been specifically pleaded in the petition, there has been no denial of those statements. As such, the statements as made, can be looked into or relied upon. There is also no legal evidence available in this case that the respondent No. 1, J.L.R.O, was specially empowered under S. 50 of the said Act. Even though such and relevant facts have been specifically pleaded in the petition, there has been no denial of those statements. As such, the statements as made, can be looked into or relied upon. Such being the position, the petitioners, as stated by Mr. Maity, can easily claim the benefits of the determinations in the case of Sachinandan Bag v. Revenue Officer & Ors, 85 CWN 383. 10. Thus, the points urged will have to be answered in favour of the petitioners and I order accordingly. The Rule is this made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.