ORDER This application is directed against the order dated 9th December 1978 passed by the Revenue Officer directing that Barga recording be made in the names of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The petitioners are brothers and are the owners of about 12 bighas of land in various plots in khatian No. 331(Kri) J.L. No. 47, Mcuja Tanrui, Goghat, Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as the said lands). The said lands were purchased by the petitioners between 1964 and 1968 and since the said parchase, the lands are in their "personal cultivation and supervision". Neither the C.S. records nor in the R.S. records, there is any mention of any bargadar in respect of the said lands. The petitioner no. 1 who looked after the cultivation had severe heart attack and it necessitated the appointment of some person to supervise the cultivation. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent nos. 5 and 6 agreed to supervise the cultivation on an yearly remuneration of Rs.1320/- and they were engaged on those terms in 1974. They were never paid any share of the produce. 3. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 wrote a letter to the Settlement Camp, Kamarpukur, Hooghly on 20.12.77 claiming that they had been cultivating the said lands of the petitioners as bargadars for the last five years and had delivering the share of the produce to the petitioners. 4. Thereafter an on the spot enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector of Hooghly on 24.12.77. He submitted a report to the SDO, Arambagh on 2.1.78 to the following effect: "As desired by you, I conducted an enquiry in the matter on 24th December 1977 in connection with a claim of Sri Gour Ghosh for Barga rights over the entire land holding of Sri Ratan and Sanat Roy of Village Kapsit. Apart from the confusing array of evidence taken in writing and attached with this report, I have explored some local sources to find out the exact nature of things I am conviced that Sri Gour Ghosh of village Tarui is attached for a long time spanning about five yean or so, with the cultivation and supervision of lands owned by Sri Ratan and Sri Sanat Roy. In exchange for his labour and management Sri Ghosh used to get according to some verbal agreement as definite quota of remuneration throughout the year. In exchange for his labour and management Sri Ghosh used to get according to some verbal agreement as definite quota of remuneration throughout the year. Now that Barga rights are being ascertained people cultivating lands on the principle of sharing crops, Sri Ghosh is best on making the some plea, though his actual status is very much like a steward." 5. Revenue Officer, Kamarpukur Settlement Office also took up the matter for investigation. After conducting the local enquiry on the spot and after taking evidence, he rejected the prayer of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for recording their names as bargadars. He held as follows:- "The dispute arises for recording the name of bargadars which is said to have been omitted during Bajarat stage. The applicants deposed that they are the bargadars of the suit plots and demand that recording should be done as bargadar verifying the field on the spot which is not at all accepted as their deposition is not related to the manner of barga cultivation. They do not deliver the share of produce to the owners of land who enjoy the total produce of the suit land at the cost of remuneration paid to the applicant for supervision. I think that the mode of cultivation of the applicant is like as steward. Conducted the local enquairy on the sport and get the same confirmed from the opposite party’s contention as well as documentary evidence produced by the opposite party i.e. owner (enquiry report dated 2.1.78 of Dy. Collector and Dy. Magistrate, Hooghly) during filed enquiry it is revealed that applicants did not come forward to recorded their names during Bujarat stage as such the R.O. could not record their name as bargadar during K.G. stage. I am also convinced that the applicants did not come forward as they had a previous negotiation with owner of the land. Subsequently, there was a breach of negotiation and this dispute cropped up. Hence the applicant took the plea for recording their names as bargadar. In the above fact and circumstances of the case their prayer is not allowed.” 6. Again the respondent nos. 5 and 6 wrote a letter to the Revenue officer, the respondent no. 2 recording their names as bargadar in the said lands. The respondent no. 2 started a proceeding under S. 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In the above fact and circumstances of the case their prayer is not allowed.” 6. Again the respondent nos. 5 and 6 wrote a letter to the Revenue officer, the respondent no. 2 recording their names as bargadar in the said lands. The respondent no. 2 started a proceeding under S. 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Revenue Officer by his order dated 9th December, 1978 held that “as per present law steward is also a bargadar as the cultivation is done by him.” His order is to the following effect:- "Review the case on O.P's petition dated 5.12.78 which is made part with the proceeding. In the absence of O.P. I allowed the Barga cases put now O.P produces document in support of his claim. R. Pal Dy. Magistrate as per kind direction of SDO Arambagh conducted an enquiry on 2.1.78 who did not accept the suit plot as Barga cultivation by Gour Ghosh and Kalipada but given his opinion as steward. Another enquiry was conducted by R.O. on 20.1.78 which also agrees with the learned Dy. Magistrate's order. The learned Dy. Magistrate order is made part of the proceeding I am convinced that the learned Magistrate's order cannot stand as per present law steward also a Bargadar at the cultivation is done by him." 7. The said order dated 5th December, 1978 is under challenge in this proceeding. 8. Under S. 2(2) of the Land Refoms Act 'bargadar" means a person who under the system generally known as adhi, barga or bhag cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of produce of such land to that person and includes a person who under the system generally known as krisan cultivates the land of another person on condition of receiving a share of produce of such land from that person. The said subsection was construed by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then as) in the case of Biswanath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal reported in (1979) 1 CLJ 613. It was held: "the licencee, or the servant or the agent of the owner of the person to whom the land belongs, if he cultivates cannot be a bargadar under sub-s. (2) of S. 2 of the Act." (p-674) 9. As indicated earlier, the Deputy Magistrate in his report dated 2nd January, 1978 held that status of the respondent nos. It was held: "the licencee, or the servant or the agent of the owner of the person to whom the land belongs, if he cultivates cannot be a bargadar under sub-s. (2) of S. 2 of the Act." (p-674) 9. As indicated earlier, the Deputy Magistrate in his report dated 2nd January, 1978 held that status of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is "very much like steward." The Revenue Officer also held that the mode of cultivation of the applicants is like a steward. But the Revenue Officer without having any fresh material on the face of judicial decision on the interpretation of the expression 'bargadar' held that "as per present law steward also a hargadar as the cultivation is done by him." It is not known what he meant by saying "present law" and where he found such law. The conclusion arrived by the Revenue Officer in his order dated 9.12.78 cannot be sustained. First, he had no authority or jurisdiction to sit on appeal on the finding of the Deputy Magistrate and the Revenue Officer. Secondly, his conclusion is contrary to law. The licencee or the servant or the agent of the owner of the land even if be cultivates the land cannot be a bargadar within the meaning of S. 2(2) of the said Act. All the authorities have held that status of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is that of steward. Steward is one who superintends another's affairs especially an estate or farm. He therefore, is a servant or agent of the person on whose behalf he superintends the affair of the farm. In that view of the matter the respondent nos. 5 and 6 being the stewards appointed by the petitioner cannot be bargadars, The Revenue Officer, has therefore, committed an error of law in holding that a steward is also a bargadar. 10. In the result this application succeeds. The Rule is made absolute. The order dated 9.12.78 of the Revenue Officer is quashed. Let appropriate writs be issued. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.