JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners claim to be owners of plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. They have challenged in this writ application recording of the names of the respondent no. 5 as a bargadar in respect of the petitioner's share 'in plot nos. 526 and 527 R. S. Khatian no. 46 mouza Lalkundu. In the above view it is not necessary for me to record any finding about the ownership and the mode of cultivation of the plots other than plot nos. 528 and 527 mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The question or the question regarding recording of names of other - persons are accordingly left open. I also make it clear that in case the petitioners are owners only of part and not in entirety of plot nos. 526 and 527 this order will not affect the recording of the name of respondent no. 5 as bargadar, if any, made in respect of the shares of other person having remaining shares, if any, in the said two plots. 2. AT the hearing of this application it has been made clear that the instant recording was made by the Revenue Officer concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule A to the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. Thus, in the instant case the said entries have been made in course of the revision of the record of rights under chapter VII of the West Bengal Land reforms Act. I do not propose to decide myself. Whether in fact in respect of the aforesaid two plots relationship of owner and the bargadar subsists between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent no. 5 on the other. The said question may be decided at the first instance by the Revenue Officer and thereafter by appropriate authority in appropriate manner. Upon a perusal of the records I find that in the instant case the notice of the enquiry in question was not given in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of the second proviso to Rule 1 sch A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The records indicate that instead of the names of the petitioners the name of their father who was allegedly recorded raiyat was mentioned in the notice published by the Revenue officer. The records indicate that instead of the names of the petitioners the name of their father who was allegedly recorded raiyat was mentioned in the notice published by the Revenue officer. The Revenue Officer is required to hold an enquiry in terms of clause (ii) of second proviso to rule 1 of Schedule A by giving the persons claiming as bargadars and the owners of the lands concerned opportunity of being heard. Such an enquiry is quasi judicial in nature. Therefore, the Revenue Officer is bound to conform to the rules of natural justice. 3. CLAUSE (ii) of the second proviso to rule 1 Schedule A no doubt dispenses with personal service of notices of the enquiry contemplated under the said clause (ii ). The Revenue Officer has been given power to publish notice of his intention to hold enquiry by affixing notice on some conspicuous part in the village or area in which the land so affected is situate.- Another notice is required to be served by affixing at a conspicuous place in the office of the Gram panchayat within whose jurisdiction the land affected is situated. When a publication is made in the above manner, by reason of the deeming provision contained in clause (iii) of the second proviso to rule 1 Schedule A knowledge of the persons concerned shall be imputed and it would be deemed that they have been given opportunity to be heard as required under item (ii) But publication of such notice must be in strict conformity with the said clause (iii). In my view, therefore, such notice ought to mention the name of the person or persons claiming as bargadars, the names of owners of the land concerned, the plot of land and the place and time of the enquiry to be. held by the Revenue Officer. Mentioning in the notice the name of the recorded owner who is no longer the present owner of the property would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of law. 4. MRS. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it might be difficult to ascertain the name of the owner upon whom the interest of the person recorded as raiyat might have devolved by inheritance or transfer In my view, the same does not really present any insurmountable obstacle in complying with the provisions of clause (iii). 4. MRS. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it might be difficult to ascertain the name of the owner upon whom the interest of the person recorded as raiyat might have devolved by inheritance or transfer In my view, the same does not really present any insurmountable obstacle in complying with the provisions of clause (iii). Obviously, when a claim is made by a person that he is a bargadar, such, a person is likely to disclose the name of the owner under whom he claims such a status of bargadar and upon information the Revenue Officer would be able to publish notices in the manner prescribed by clause (iii). In the instant case notices issued were not addressed to the petitioners. Therefore, I propose to direct a fresh enquiry to be held by the Revenue Officer 5. I make it clear that since the other persons under whom the petitioners might have been recorded bargadars have not come forward the recording of names other than the petitioners will, continue to remain in force subject to further orders made in the proceeding for revision of records. 6. I accordingly make the Rule absolute so far as the petitioners and the respondent no. 5 are concerned only in respect of plot nos. 526 and 527, R. S. Khatian no. 46, mouza Lalkundu. I command the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry regarding the claim of the respondent no. 5 as a bargadar under the petitioners in respect of the petitioner's share in the aforesaid plots. For this purpose I direct the Revenue Officer will commence the enquiry on the 14th July, 1983 at his office and the petitioners waive publication and service of fresh notice. Such enquiry should be concluded within six weeks. I express no opinion on the merits and the Revenue officer, after holding such enquiry as he may deem fit, will pass appropriate orders. There will be no order for costs. Office will prepare and hand over a copy of this order to Mrs. M. Gupta for the State. Rule made absolute partly.