JUDGMENT 1. IN this Rule, the petitioner challenges the legality and -or validity of the initiation of a proceeding for further revision of a record -of -rights prepared upto the stage of attestation by inserting the name of respondent No. 4 as bargadar. The petitioner contends that under- section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, steps x for preparation and or revision of the record -of -rights was taken by the se element authorities and various stages for the preparation of record of rights in respect of the disputed lands have also been completed. After following the procedures as laid down in Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules read with Schedule 'a' there under, the record -of -rights in respect of the disputed lands was attested by the competent Revenue Officer authorised under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on March 4,1977 and, in such record -of- rights the names of the petitioners; were recorded as Raiyats. But there; was no barga recording in the said attested record -of -rights in favour of any person or in favour of the said respondent; No. 4. The petitioners contend that subsequently the petitioners were surprised to receive a notice from the Revenue Officer, Centralised Camp, Panskura dated June 23, 1979 that the respondent No., 4 Satish Chandra Manna had made an: application and an enquiry would be; held for the purpose of recording barga in his favour on the basis of the said application. The petitioner contends that initiation of such enquiry proceed -ding by the Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 of the West Bengal, Land Reforms Act for recording barga, after the attestation of the record -of -rights, was illegal and without jurisdiction and, the petitioner prays that the; said proceeding should be quashed. This Court issued a Rule on the said application and passed an interim order to the effect that the proceeding for recording of barga on the basis of the said notice might: continue but no final order should be passed. 2. AT the hearing of the Rule, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing For the petitioners contend that under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, a record of -rights can be revised and/or prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 22 read with Schedule 'a' there under. Mr. 2. AT the hearing of the Rule, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing For the petitioners contend that under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, a record of -rights can be revised and/or prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 22 read with Schedule 'a' there under. Mr. Banerjee contends that various stages for preparation of the record -of -rights have been gone into and after necessary,enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the record -of -rights was attested by the Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It may be noted in this connection that copies of such attested records have been annexed to the writ petition being Annexures 'at and 'a2 Mr. Banerjee contends that when such attestation has been, made, the Revenue Officer empowered under Section 51 is bound to publish the Draft Record -of -Rights in accordance with Rule 24 of the Rules and if anybody has any objection in respect of any entry or entries upto the stage of draft record -of -rights, he can file objection within the prescribed period. Mr. Banerjee contends that in appropriate cases under schedule 'a' of Rule 22, a Revenue Officer who has been appointed with additional designation of Settlement Officer, can either on his own motion or on receipt of applications from others at any time before the final publication of the record -of -rights direct-" (i) that any portion of the proceedings in respect of the revision or preparation of the record -of -rights of any District or part thereof shall be cancelled and that such proceedings shall be carried out de novo from such stage as he may direct. No notice of such cancellation, whether on own motion or on application, shall be required to be given, or shall be deemed to have been required to be given but before proceedings are carried out de novo from the stage as may be directed, a proclamation by beat of drums of the proposed proceedings shall be served in the district or part thereof : (ii) that names of bargadars shall be incorporated in the record -of- rights by the Revenue Officer subordinate to him after holding such enquiry and after giving the persons claiming as bargadars and the owners of the land concerned such opportunity of being heard as the Revenue Officer may deem fit. Mr. Banerjee contends that in the instant case, the Revenue Officer who entertained the said application of the Respondent No. 4 Satish Chandra Manna and who initiated the impugned proceeding for recording of barga was not the Revenue Officer with additional designation of Settlement Officer and as such he had no authority to invoke the powers under Schedule A' of Rule 22. Mr. Banerjee accordingly contends that the initiation of the said proceeding by the Revenue Officer was completely without jurisdiction and on that score alone the proceeding should be quashed. 3. MRS. Moitra, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, however, submits that a Revenue Officer empowered under Section 51 is quite competent to revise and/or prepare the record -of rights under the provisions of Section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. She contends that in the instant case, the draft record -of- rights was not published and as such the occasion for filing of objections against any entry or entries upto the stage of draft record -of -rights under Rule 24 did not arise. She submits that if before the publication of the draft record -of -rights, a Revenue Officer authorised under section 51 gets any information either on the basis of an application made by a party or otherwise that there had been some errors or omission in the record -of- rights prepared upto the attestation stage, the said Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to start a proceeding for correcting such errors or omissions before publishing the draft record -of -rights. The learned Counsel for the State, however, concedes that the Revenue Officer in the instant case is not the Revenue Officer with additional designation of Settlement Officer. The learned Counsel for the State, however, concedes that the Revenue Officer in the instant case is not the Revenue Officer with additional designation of Settlement Officer. But the learned Counsel contends that there was no necessity of invoking power under second proviso to Schedule 'a' of Rule 22 in the facts and circumstances of this case and the Revenue Officer authorised under Section 51 is quite competent to correct errors or omissions before publication of the draft record -of -rights. 4. MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, the (earned Counsel assisted by Sri Mrinal Kanti [das appearing as amicus curiae, has submitted that Rule 22 read with Schedule 'a' makes it clear that if the record -of rights has been prepared and/or revised upto the attestation stage, a draft record -of -rights is got to be published in accordance with such attested record- of- rights and any person feeling aggrieved by any entry relating to such draft record- of- rights may file objections under Rule 24 within a specific time. Mr. Mukherjee also contends that the second proviso to Schedule 'a' under Rule 22 also indicate that only very superior officer namely a Revenue Officer with an additional designation of Settlement Officer, can either on his own motion or on receipt of applications from others at any time before the final publication of the record- of- rights, direct that names of Bargadars should be incorporated in the record of rights by the Revenue Officer subordinate to him after holding such enquiry in terms of clause (ii) of the second proviso and such superior Revenue Officer can also direct for cancellation of any portion of the proceedings in respect of the Revision or preparation of the record -of -rights before final publication to carry out proceedings de novo from such stage. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that it will, therefore be quite clear that if there are reasons to believe that there had been any irregularity in the matter of preparation and/or revision of record of rights up to any stage prior to final publication or there had been any error 6r omission in the entry or entries relating to such record of right, then only such superior officer being the Revenue Officer with additional designation of a Settlement Officer can direst for cancellation and de novo preparation of the record -of -rights upto that stage and/or for recording the names of bargadar by making necessary corrections in respect of the record of rights prepared upto that stage. Mr. Mukherjee contends that if all Revenue Officers empowered under Section 51 of the Act are permitted to correct the record of rights pre -pared upto the attestation stage, by incorporating the names of bargadars, then the very purpose of giving such power to a superior officer under second proviso to Schedule 'a' will be frustrated and sue In exercise of power by an ordinary Revenue Officer not having additional designation Of a Settlement Officer will be explicitly contrary to the second proviso to Schedule 'a'. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the rule making authority ensured that the record of rights: revised or prepared upto different stages; including the stage of attestation should not be reviewed and or corrected by any officer below the rank of a Settlement Officer. Mr. Mukherjee also submits that the attestation is made by the Revenue Officer by causing plot to plot enquiry and survey whenever necessary and after hearing the interested parties and giving wide publicity in the village. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that after following such procedure, the Revenue Officer is to prepare attested copies of the record of rights and publish the same. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the same officer or another officer with the same rank has not, been invested with any power to review the attested record of rights. 5. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that after following such procedure, the Revenue Officer is to prepare attested copies of the record of rights and publish the same. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the same officer or another officer with the same rank has not, been invested with any power to review the attested record of rights. 5. AFTER hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties as also the learned Amicus Curiae, it appears to me that the Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has no authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the Act and relevant Rules framed there under. It appears that in, the instant case, the record of rights was attested on March 4, 1977 and the impugned proceeding for correction and/or for incorporating the names of the bargadars was initiated some time in 1979. It does not appear that there was any cogent reason for not publishing the draft record of rights within a period of about two years from the date of attestation. In my view, Mrs. Moitra is not correct in her submission that simply because the draft record was not published, the Revenue officer empowered under section 51 could revise the attested copies. It appears to me that the learned Amicus Curiae is quite justified in his submission that if a Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 is allowed to revise the attested copy of the record of rights, then the very purpose of giving such authority to a superior officer namely the Revenue Officer with additional designation of a Settlement Officer in second proviso of Schedule 'a' will be frustrated and the rule making authority has riot intended that such revision will be made by an ordinary Revenue Officer without additional designation of a Settlement Officer In the instant case, by entertaining an objection raised by the respondent No. 4 Satish Chandra Manna before publication of the draft record of rights, the Revenue Officer purported to assume jurisdiction which he could have only when such an objection would have been filed by the said respondent no. 4 after publication of the draft record of rights within the specified time. 4 after publication of the draft record of rights within the specified time. In my view, it will not be proper on the part of the Revenue Officer and/or the Settlement authorities to withhold publication of the draft record for a long period after the attestation is over. The scheme of the Act and the Rules make it quite clear that the draft record of rights is got to be published after the completion of the attested record of rights and such publication must be made without any unreasonable delay, it will also not be correct to contend that simply because the draft record was not published, any revenue officer empowered under section 51 will have the same power and authority as the Revenue Officer with additional designation of Settlement Officer to correct and/or revise the record of rights prepared up to any stage prior to the publication of the draft record of rights. 6. IN the circumstances, the impugned proceeding initiated by the Revenue Officer being Misc. Case No. 357 of 1959 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the said proceeding is quashed and all findings and/or order made pursuant to such proceeding are also quashed. This order, however, will not preclude the authorities concerned to initiate proper proceeding in accordance to with Law for recorsding barga cultivation in respect of the disputed land. The Rule is disposed of accordingly but there will be no order as to costs. This Court acknowledges its deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.