JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule arises out of a proceeding for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act which was allowed by the learned Munsif, Bishnupur, by an order dated June 16, 1979, passed in Judicial misc. Case No. 41 of 1977 but was dismissed on an appeal by the pre-emptee by an order dated June 12, 1980, passed by the learned District Judge, Bankura in misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1979. The preemptor has obtained this Rule oh a revisional application challenging the aforesaid appellate order. 2. MATERIAL facts do not appear to be in dispute. Dag No. 12267 of Khatian No. 165, Mouza-Deshra, Police Station-Kotal-pur, measuring O. 26 decimals admittedly belonged to one Jugal Das Baishnab. On June 26, 1965, the pre-emptor purchased o. 01 decimals out of the said plot from jugal Das and thus became a co-sharer of the holding. On December 11, 1976, the pre-emptee/opposite party purchased the balance land of that holding from Jugal das for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. No notice of such transfer was, however, served upon the pre-emptor petitioner. On October 11, 1977, the pre-emptor filed the application for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, as a co-sharer by depositing the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-together with the statutory compensation of Rs. 500/ -. This application for pre-emption was contested by the pre-emptee opposite party on various grounds. For our present purposes it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds since all of them except the one as to the maintainability of the proceedings had been concurrently overruled by the two courts below. On the point of maintainability the pre-emptee raised an objection that since the land did not appertain an agricultural holding, an application under section 8 of the Land Reforms act, was not maintainable. That objection was overruled by the learned Munsif when he held that though the land in dispute Was classified as 'bhiti' it was a part of a raiyati holding recorded as Raiyati Dakhali Satwa visistha and since it had been purchased for the purpose of Khamar it could not be said that it was not agricultural land. The learned District Judge in dismissing the claim of pre-emption overruled the learned munsif on the point. The learned District Judge in dismissing the claim of pre-emption overruled the learned munsif on the point. On consideration of evidence the learned District Judge found that since before the date of vesting the land in dispute had ceased to be used for any agricultural purpose and on the other hand it was being used for non-agricultural purpose of constructing homestead and hence it could not be said to be agricultural land any further or the holding to be an agricultural holding. Feeling aggrieved the pre-emptor has now challenged the said decision of the learned District judge. 3. MR. Roy-chowdhury appearing in support of this revisional application has strongly contended that when in the R. S. record of rights the disputed holding has been recorded as 'raiyati Dakhali Satwa Visistha', it cannot but be an agricultural land. It has further been contended by Mr. Roy chowdhury that on the face of such anent in the record of rights it must be presumed to be correct and, unless the pre-emptee rebuts the said presumption by adducing reliable evidence to show that the holding is not a raiyati holding, the pre-emptor's claim for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, could not have been refused. In any event, according to Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned District Judge has not found the entry to be erroneous, but, nonetheless, he has held the holding to be not an agricultural holding. The point thus raised by Mr. Roychowdhury has been strongly contested by Mr. Banerji appearing on behalf of the pre-emptee. 4. WE have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward before us. In our view though the judgment of the learned munsif is otherwise well reasoned, he has missed a subtle point. Undoubtedly the law so long was that the nature of the tenancy would be determined by the original purpose of the settlement and not by the nature of the user of the land so settled so that when the disputed land was originally settled for agricultural purpose, it would, on the application of the said principle, continue to remain an agricultural holding irrespective of how it had been used. But that law has undergone a material change, as pointed out by this court, by the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. But that law has undergone a material change, as pointed out by this court, by the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Under the provisions of the said Act, whether a particular land is agricultural or non-agricultural would no longer depend upon the purpose of its original settlement it would depend, on the other hand, on how it was being used on the date of vesting. On the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the said Act read with Rule 4 thereof, land which was being Used for non-agricultural purpose on the date of vesting would constitute a non-agricultural tenancy and it would cease to be an agricultural tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the original purpose of such settlement was agricultural. Therefore, it was necessary, as rightly pointed out by the learned District judge, to determine how was the land being used on the date of vesting in order to determine the true character of the holding. It is not in dispute that in the cs record of rights prepared in or about 1929-30 the disputed land was classified as 'bastu' or homestead. In the RS record of rights prepared under the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act, it has been recorded as 'bhiti which means "vestiges of an old house" (See Wilson's Glossary ). That apart, the learned District Judge rightly pointed out that the recital in the pre-emptor's own document of purchase pf the year 1965 clearly goes to show that the land was being used for construction of house and Khamar etc. The learned District judge has found as a fact that since before the date of vesting the disputed land was being used for non-agricultural purpose and such a finding being based for on evidence on record is binding on us in a revisional application. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Roychowdhury on the entry in the RS record of rights describing the holding as a Raiyati dakhali Satwa Visistha" or in other words an occupancy raiyat. According to Mr. Roychowdhury this entry must be presumed to be correct and if so the land must be considered to be appertaining to a raiyati holding or an agricultural holding. In our view, Mr. According to Mr. Roychowdhury this entry must be presumed to be correct and if so the land must be considered to be appertaining to a raiyati holding or an agricultural holding. In our view, Mr. Roy chowdhury is right in contending that such an entry must be presumed to be correct but that presumption does not lead to the conclusion that even after the date of vesting it continues to remain an agricultural holding. It should be remembered that the R. S. record of rights were prepared with reference to the state of affairs ex sting on the date of vesting and not incorporating the effect of the vesting. We lave already pointed out that on the law as it. prevailed before the date of vesting the land in dispute must be held to be an agricultural holding in view of the original purpose of its settlement. So, it was incumbent upon the revenue authorities to record its original character in the record of rights. But the right of pre-emption must be determined with reference to the state of affairs standing on the date of transfer, since on the date of transfer the nature of the holding had ceased to be agricultural, by virtue of its user on the intervention of the statute, namely, the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, it can no longer be considered as an agricultural holding. We, therefore, overrule this contention of Mr. Roychowdhury since in our view the entry in the record of rights describing this holding as raiyati Dakhali Satwa Visistna' does not change the position in law and even if such an entry be presumed to be correct that does not lead to the conclusion that on the date of transfer the nature of the holding continued to remain as such 5. IN the result, we uphold the decision of the learned District Judge and discharge this Rule. We keep it on record that though Mr. Roychowdhury at a late stage had filed an application for amendment of the original application for pre-emption claiming relief alternatively under the West bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, he upon further consideration prayed for leave to withdraw the said application without prejudice to the pre-emptor's right to claim pre-emption under the said Act, in an independent proceeding if it be still available to him. We have granted Mr. We have granted Mr. Roychowdhury such leave to withdraw and, therefore, we do not propose to express any opinion in that regard. There will be no order as to costs.