ORDER This Rule, with the corresponding interim order for stay of further hearing of Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976, for a limited period, which was thereafter extended, was obtained on 18th November, 1977, challenging not only the initiation and validity of the determinations in the said Misc. Case but also the validity of the impugned notices in Annexure-B, as issued by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Kukrahati, Midnapore, being respondent No. 2. It should be noted that the Rule against respondent No. 9 Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyay, has been discharged for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 6th December 1976 and Mr. Maity, appearing in support of the Rule, claimed and contended that even in the absence of the said respondent, the Rule can proceed. 2. It has been stated by the petitioners that the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyay, respondent No.9 and against whom the Rule has been discharged, was the son of Shri Ram Chandra Chattopadhayaya and he got the suit lands including other lands from his paternal grand-father Shri Ram Rakshya Chattopadhaaya by registered, Deed of Settlement dated 8th December 1965. The particulars of the concerned deed and so also the description of the suit lands, which measured more or less 58- /2, have been mentioned in paragraph 2(a) of the petition. It has also been stated that the suit lands were correctly recorded and finally published, in the revisionsal record of rights in the name of the initial owner Ram Rakshya Chattopadhyaya. It was also the case of the petitioners that the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya was working for gain in Calcutta Police, at the time of issuance of the Rule and taking advantage of his position, he along with the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 tried to disposses the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya and at that, he lodged a complaint against those persons before the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned and the S. P. Midnapore apart from, the Officer-in-Charge, Sutahata Police Station. The persons apart from Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya, have been claimed to be Sarabashree Ram Sankar Chattopadhyaya and Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyaya, both sons of Ram Rakshya Chattopadhyaya. 3. The persons apart from Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya, have been claimed to be Sarabashree Ram Sankar Chattopadhyaya and Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyaya, both sons of Ram Rakshya Chattopadhyaya. 3. It has been stated by the petitioners that on such happenings a village Solenama was made and all the persons vacated the lands in question, including the paternal house of the respondent No.9 and thereafter, the said respondent No. 9, sold out of the suit lands measuring 46-1/2 acres comprising of Plot Nos. 705 and 704 and as mentioned in paragraph 3(a), by a registered Kobala dated 2nd December 1976. 4. It has been stated that similarly petitioner No.2, minor, Madan Mohan Pradhan, purchased about 12 acres of lands containing Plot No. 125 from Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya, respondent No.9, by registered Kobala dated 14th January 1977 and the petitioners have categorically stated that at all material times they were and still they are in possession of the respective portion of the lands in question, by personal cultivation and raising of crops. It has further been stated that before that, the deceased respondent No.9, moved the Commissioner of Police against his dispossession as mentioned above and that too by the persons as mentioned and Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyay, on or about 12th May 1976, filed an application against the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya, before the Bhagchas Officer, Sutahata for recording his name as Bargadar. This case was registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976. It has been stated that as in the mean time, the solenama was made in the manner as stated hereinbefore, the matter was not proceeded by the parties further and after the completion of the Solenama and recovering the possession, the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya while alive, sold out the suit lands to the petitioners and they are in peaceful possession of the respective portions by personal cultivation, from the dates of their purchase. 5. It was the case of the petitioners that the paternal uncles and the cousin brothers of the deceased Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya, having thus failed to grab the lands in question, through their associate and Shri Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyaya, filed another unverified application on 4th October 1977, before the Bhagchas Officer, Sutahata Block No. 1., making wild allegations and adding the name of the petitioners as opposite parties, for reconsideration of the application in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976 as mentioned above and for recording the name of the said Shri Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyaya as Bargadar in respect of the plots in question. It appeared that after the concerned unverified application was filed, the impugned notice dated 15th October 1977 was issued by the authorities concerned, directing the petitioners to be present at the office on 3rd November, 1977 with all records and evidence and fixed a date for hearing of the said application. It was the case of the petitioners that they presented themselves before the officer concerned and took exception to his jurisdiction to entertain such unverified application and also his authority under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for correction of entries in the finally published record of rights by recording Bargadars. It has also been stated that the petitioners further produced the concerned Solenama between respondent Nos. 8 and 9 other family members, apart from other evidence of respective possession and cultivation in respect of the lands in suit by the parties. The petitioners have stated that the copy of the application by Ram Rakhal Chattopadhyaya, respondent No.8, was not supplied in time, even in spite of the fact, that such copy was specifically asked for and demanded by the petitioners. In fact, it has been stated that only on 5th November 1977, such copy was made available and as such the petitioners were not in a position to file any written exception. Further, it would appear that whatever exceptions, the petitioners took, were overruled on 4th January 1978 and thereafter, the petitioners on being saved with notices as in Annexure-B, demanded justice from the Bhagchas Officer concerned, through their learned Advocate, but according to the petitioners, justice has been denied to them. 6. It was the specific case of the petitioners that the application as in Annexure-A to the petition, not being a verified one, was not maintainable in law and any action purported to be taken on the basis thereof, was bad, improper and irregular. It was the specific and categorical case of the petitioners that Misc. 6. It was the specific case of the petitioners that the application as in Annexure-A to the petition, not being a verified one, was not maintainable in law and any action purported to be taken on the basis thereof, was bad, improper and irregular. It was the specific and categorical case of the petitioners that Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976, as well as the unverified application as mentioned above, was filed before the respondent Bhagchas Officer and as such the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Kukrahati, respondent No.2, had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the impugned notices as in Annexure-B. In fact, it has been alleged that the issue of such notices were done mala fide and in colourable use and exercise of power and as such, from any other infirmities, the said notices were wholly without jurisdiction, void ad initio and improper. The petitioners have claimed that even assuming that the application in Annexure-A, was maintainable before Bhagchas Officer concerned, even then, without drawing up any proceedings under S. 20B as alleged in the concerned application, the impugned proceedings for recording of Bargadar was not maintainable in law. It was also claimed by the petitioners that under the provisions of the said Act, particularly under S. 50, neither the said Bhagchas Officer nor the Junior Land Reforms Officer was duly authorised or specially empowered as Revenue Officer, to correct the entries in the finally published revisional record of rights. As such, the drawing up of the concerned proceedings, as well as the entertainment of the application in question, by the Bhagchas Officer and the issue of the notices by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, were absolutely void, without jurisdiction, violative of the statutory provisions of the said Act, apart from being mala fide and improper. 7. The petitioners have also and further stated that already settlement operations under the said Act have been started in the local area and as such the Revenue Officer, Settlement Camp at Mahishadal, respondent No.3, was the appropriate authority under Ss. 50, 51 and 51A of the said Act to correct the entries in the finally published record of rights, if at all, and such correction could neither be possible nor permissible either by the Bhagchas Officer or by the Junior Land Reforms Officer. As such, it was stated that the impugned proceeding being Misc. 50, 51 and 51A of the said Act to correct the entries in the finally published record of rights, if at all, and such correction could neither be possible nor permissible either by the Bhagchas Officer or by the Junior Land Reforms Officer. As such, it was stated that the impugned proceeding being Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976 and the application before the Bhagchas Officer and the notices as impeached, which were for correction of entries in the finally published record of rights, in respect of the lands in question, were wholly without jurisdiction, void ad initio and violative of the statutory provisions of the said Act. The petitioners have further claimed that at all material times they had and still they have a right to hold the lands in question and cultivate them until and unless they are taken away in due process of law and possession of those lands, not having been taken in such process of law, the authorities concerned, had no right to interfere with such possession of the petitioners. 8. The affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case was filed by the respondent no. 8 and in fact, which was the only affidavit filed on or about 26th May 1978. A supplementary affidavit dated 17th November 1977, was filed by the petitioners. The supplementary affidavit, or the filing of the same, according to the petitioners, was necessary to make clear, the authority of the Junior Land Reforms Officer in revising and/or correcting entries in the finally published record of rights of raiyats. It has been stated that after due and diligent search, one notification No. 20478/L Ref. dated 21st August 1973, could be found out by the petitioners from the Settlement Office at Mahisadal, Midnapore and issued by the Junior Land Reforms Officer whereby it appeared that the Junior Land Reforms Officer has been specially empowered under the provisions of S. 50 of the said Act. dated 21st August 1973, could be found out by the petitioners from the Settlement Office at Mahisadal, Midnapore and issued by the Junior Land Reforms Officer whereby it appeared that the Junior Land Reforms Officer has been specially empowered under the provisions of S. 50 of the said Act. But the said notification provides further that before the same, officers of the Settlement Directorate were exclusively empowered under S. 50 of the said Act and the said notification stated that "with a view to prevent any overlapping of jurisdiction of these two classes of Revenue Officers, it has been stated by the Government that the Junior Land Reforms Officers who are, by this notification being vested with power of a Revenue Officer for the purposes of S. 50 of the said Act, will not function as Revenue Officer under the said section in Mouzas where Revisional Settlement Operation under S. 51 of the said Act, was in progress, till the record of rights of such Mouzas are finally published. In such area the other officers of the Settlement Directorate, empowered under S. 50 of the said Act, will only functions as such". These apart, a reference was made in the supplementary affidavit, to the determinations in the case of Panchanan Paik. v. State & Ors., 1975 (2) C.L.J. 495 , on the question of interpretation of the notification. 9. The respondents No.8, in his affidavit-in-opposition as mentioned has denied specifically the Shri Ram Mohan chattopadhyay was in possession of the lands in question, and he has stated that he cultivated the disputed lands as Bargadar under Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya since 1374 B. S. and on 14th May 1976, he made an application before the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned, for Barga recording. Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya and the said officer started the concerned Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976. It has been stated that the such Misc. Case was not heard and it was the case of the deponent that at that time, due to emergency, Shri Ram Mohan chattopadhyaya being a police constable falsely reported against him before the higher authorities and thereafter, on 2nd September, 1976 to the Officer-in-Charge, Sutahata Police Station and threatened him to effect that if he did not give up the Barga cultivation, he would be arrested and would also be sent to prision. It has been alleged that thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge concerned, forcibly took a Bond from the deponent. He has of course, stated that he did not give up the possession. In spite of the threat as mentioned above and cultivated the lands in suit and gave Bhag produce to the said Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya in the year 1976. It was his case and in the year 1977, the said Shri Ram Mohan Chattopadhyaya sold lands in Khatian No. 266, measuring 02 acres and .44 acres in Khatian No. 168. to Shri Santosh Kumar Maity, Petitioner No. 1 and .12 acres in Khatian No. 175 to Shri Madan Prodhan, petitioner No. 2 and then on 11th August 1977, he made an application before the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned, for Barga recording of his name and the said officer started the Barga recording proceedings, being Case No. 369 of 1977 and 368 of 1977. 10. It was the case of the deponent that on 4th October 1977, the Circle Inspector, after enquiry, submitted a report to the Junior Land Reforms Officer and such report would show that the deponent cultivated the disputed lands as Bargadar. He has also stated that the petitioners having failed to oust him from Barga cultivation, Shri Santosh Kumar Maity started Criminal Case under Ss. 147/447/379 I. P. C. Similarly, Madan Prodhan also started another Criminal Case against him under S. 143/379/447/352-504/109/114 I.P.C. It was the case of the petitioners that he again started a Barga proceeding being Case No. 59 of 1977 on 15th October 1977, for recording his name before the authority concerned and on 15th December 1977, he filed a petition before the Bhagchas Officer, Sutahata Police Station, being Bhagchas Case No. 46 of 1977 and Case No. 47/77-78, to deliver the share of the produce, as the petitioners refused to accept such shares from his as Bargadar. 11. The deponent has denied that the petitioners were or are in peaceful possession of the respective portions of the suit lands and were personally cultivating them as alleged. He has stated that the Solenama in question, was not a true one, the same was fabricated and void one. He has categorically stated that it was not the petitioner, but he was in peaceful possession of the lands in question, by cultivation as Bargadar. He has stated that the Solenama in question, was not a true one, the same was fabricated and void one. He has categorically stated that it was not the petitioner, but he was in peaceful possession of the lands in question, by cultivation as Bargadar. He has stated that he made the application for revival of the concerned Case No. 17 of 1976, before the Junior Land Reforms Officer for recording his name as Bargadar. 12. The above affidavit-in-opposition was replied to by the petitioners through the petitioner No. 1 Santosh Kumar Maity, by the affidavit dated 9th June 1981. The allegations of mala fide use and exercise of power or the influence as mentioned by the respondent No.8, in the matter have been denied. That apart the other material allegations have also been denied and the petitioners have reiterated that after their purchase they duly entered into possession and at all material time, were and still are in possession of the lands in question, in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. It has also been alleged that in harvesting period of 1978, the deponent by bribing the police authorities, seized produce of the case plot of lands from the said Shri Santosh Kumar Maity and as such, he had no other alternative but to file a proceeding under S. 457 Cr. P.C. It has been stated that such proceedings has been answered in favour of the said Shri Maity and the produce has been returned to him. This fact alone according to the deponent, would be enough to establish that the petitioners at all material times were and still are in possession of the lands in question. 13. It was claimed by Mr. Maity, appearing in support of the Rule, that Misc. Case No. 17 of 1976 as initiated, on the basis of the application as in Annexure "A", and as filed before the Bhagchas Officer concerned and so also the notice in Annexure "B", as issued by the J.L.R.O. concerned, were without jurisdiction, void ab initio and illegal, apart from the fact that they were issued contrary to the statutory provisions and in a mala fide manner. It was also claimed, that since the proceeding was initiated before the Bhagchas Officer, respondent No. 1, respondent No.2. It was also claimed, that since the proceeding was initiated before the Bhagchas Officer, respondent No. 1, respondent No.2. viz the J L R O had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the impugned notice and such issue of the said notice by the respondent No. 2, was in colourable use and exercise of power, authority and jurisdiction. In view of the above, it was also claimed that the issue of the notice by the said respondent No.2, for recording the name of the Bargadar, by correction of entries in the finally published record of right, was also void and bad. 14. Mr. Maity further claimed that the application Annexure "A", being not duty verified, the same was not only not maintainable, but no action on the same, was possible and permissible. He also contended that neither the Bhagchas Officer nor the J.L. R.O. in the instant case, hiving been duly authorised or specially empowered under the provisions of S. 50 of the said Act, any action which was drawn or sought to be completed by them, was bad, void and contrary to the requirements of the statute Mr. Maity specifically contended that settlement operations in the area, under the provisions of the said Act, having been started, the appropriate authority in the matter and if at all, was the Revenue Officer, respondent No.3 and as such, the action as proposed or taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were void and without jurisdiction. 15. It was also claimed that without drawing up any proceeding under S. 20B of the said Act, the concerned proceedings as initiated or the steps as taken, were also void, irregular, without jurisdiction and bad. 16. On the basis of the notification dated 21st August 1975, as in Annexure “D’’ to the supplementary affidavit, Mr. Maity wanted to supplement his arguments on irregular and unauthorised use of jurisdiction and authority by the officers concerned. The relevant particulars of his arguments, have been mentioned hereinbefore. 16. On the basis of the notification dated 21st August 1975, as in Annexure “D’’ to the supplementary affidavit, Mr. Maity wanted to supplement his arguments on irregular and unauthorised use of jurisdiction and authority by the officers concerned. The relevant particulars of his arguments, have been mentioned hereinbefore. It was contended by him that under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules, 1956, the application as in Annexure “x” to the petition was required to be verified, apart from contending that under S. 21B of the said Act, which lays down that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person should be presumed to be bargadar in respect of such land if such person is not a member of the family of the other person whose land he cultivates and the burden of proving that such person is not bargadar or that the land is in his personal cultivation shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force lie on the person who alleges that the person cultivating the land is not a bargadar in respect of such land, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.8, being that of uncle and nephew no recording in favour of him could be made, or proceedings initiated for that purpose. It should be noted that the rule has been discharged against respondent No.9, Ram Mohan Chattopadhaya for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 6th December 1978. These apart, reference was made by Mr. Maity, to the determinations in the case of Muktiar Hossain & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 85 CWN 69, and to the effect that a Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to start a proceeding under Rule 21(2) of the Rules read with S. 50 of the said Act, on the application of a party claiming to be a Bargadar. 17. Mr. Palit, appearing for respondent No.8 stated that the settlement in this case was made in 1979 and on the basis of the notification dated 21st August 1975, the J.L.R.O. concerned had the due and necessary authority under S. 50 of the said Act. It was also claimed by him that the J. L. R.O. concerned, having thus the due and necessary authority and power in this case, the steps as taken, were not unauthorised, illegal, irregular and void as claimed. Mr. It was also claimed by him that the J. L. R.O. concerned, having thus the due and necessary authority and power in this case, the steps as taken, were not unauthorised, illegal, irregular and void as claimed. Mr. Palit further referred to the definitions of "Bargadar" and "Personal cultivation" as in Ss. 2(2) and 2(8) of the said Act respectively and also claimed that under the relevant Rules, filing of unverified application is possible and permissible. In fact, he claimed that in this case, no verified application was necessary or needed. Mr. Palit also claimed that because of the discharge of the Rule against respondent No.9, this proceeding can neither continue nor any order can be made. 18. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the other appearing respondents, apart from adopting the arguments of Mr. Palit, claimed that in view of the general notice dated 6th December 1978, the proceeding as initiated, was due proper, valid and legal. 19. on the basis of the pleadings and the arguments as advanced, we shall have to see if on the basis of the admitted unverified but signed application as in Annexure "A" to the petition, initiation was possible and permissible and so also, whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits or advantage arising out of the said application, in case the same was not legal or in form. If the answer to the question or point as mentioned above, is in favour of the petitioners, then of course, other points as raised, would not be required to be determined. 20. Section 18 of the said Act, confers jurisdiction to decide certain disputes between a Bargadar and the person whose land he cultivates and more particularly in respect of matters enumerated in sub-ss. (a) to (b) of S. 18(1). The manner of making and disposal of the necessary application and the power of the Tribunal, have also been indicated. The Rule, relevant for making an application in this case, either by the owner or the Bargadar, would be Rule 6(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules, 1956, as amended by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules 1965. Under Rule 6(1) of the 1956 Rules, the application in question was required to be signed only and not verified. Under Rule 6(1) of the 1956 Rules, the application in question was required to be signed only and not verified. But, the words "Every such application shall be signed and verified in the manner provided in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 15 of Order 6 of Schedule 1 to the Code of Civil Procedure," as substituted by the amendment of 1965, has made it obligatory on the applicant to sign and verify the concerned application in the manner as indicated. Now, to sign and verify such an application is obligatory and non-compliance with such or any requirement, in terms of the proposition as enunciated in the case of Narendra Nath Sashmal v. Binod Behari Dey, 56 CWN 23, would make the application not maintainable or entertainable. But such defect, in my view, is curable, subject to limitations, if any. In fact, Mr. Maity submitted that such defect in the application, the particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore, were fatal. It should also be noted that there is also the determinations in the case of Darpa Hari Pakhri & Ors v. Samarendra Nath Sen & Anr., 57 CWN 337, that objections, if any, should be taken before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Tribunal and failure to take such objections, should act or operate as waiver of the same and the objection cannot be taken for the first time in High Court. The objections in the above case related to the power of the Tribunal, to determine the question of title and in such a case the Tribunal, must also in my view, should be given the opportunity to decide such question of title first, as the Tribunal concerned would certainly have the jurisdiction or would be entitled to see and decide its own jurisdiction, on due exceptions being taken. The case before us stands on a footing, different than that in the case reported in 57 CWN 337. Here, for non verification of the application duly, the initiation, if made, or as sought to be done on that basis, would be absolutely without jurisdiction and as such, the point as raised, in my view, could be urged or put forward before this Court, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here, for non verification of the application duly, the initiation, if made, or as sought to be done on that basis, would be absolutely without jurisdiction and as such, the point as raised, in my view, could be urged or put forward before this Court, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If a proceeding as initiated or the basis for such initiation, is absolutely without jurisdiction and such fact is apparent on the face of the records, as in this case, the High Court, in my view, would not ordinarily be powerless to interfere. In view of the above, the facts of the case reported in 57 CWN 337 or the objections relevant therein, cannot be equated with the facts of this case and more particularly, because of the jurisdictional facts or issues as involved. So, the submissions of Mr. Maity on the non-maintainability of the proceeding or the improper initiation of the same, because of the lack of a duly verified application, should succeed. Thus, the further hearing of the concerned Misc. Case, in the manner as initiated, cannot continue. 21. In view of the above and as indicated by me earlier, other points as urged by Mr. Maity, are not required to be decided at this stage. But, they must be left open to be agitated at appropriate stages and before the relevant authorities or forum. While making this determination, I of course hold that I am not satisfied with the arguments and submissions on the allegations of mala fide an I am of the further view that those allegations have not been established or brought home duly. 22. The Rule is thus made absolute n the point and views as indicated or expressed above. The relevant authorities, who are respondents herein, would now be entitled, if they are so advised and intend, to intitiate and conclude the necessary proceeding, in accordance with law. While making such determinations, they will be entitled to decide and consider all points, as taken in this petition, excepting those, which are determined by me, if urged. There will be no order as to costs. Till such decision as directed above is made, status quo in respect of possession as on today should continue. Rule made absolute.