JUDGMENT 1. THE appellants who are undisputed the owners of the lands in question have filed this appeal against the order and judgment of Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. disposing of the writ application filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 8 who are said to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Khudi Sk. As owners the present appellants had purported to file under sub-sections 1 (a) and (2) of section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms; Act an application before the Bhagchas Officer, Rainagar, District Murshidabad. Their case in brief was that the aforesaid Khudi Sk. (since deceased) was the bargadar under them in respect of the disputed land and he having failed to deliver the owner's share of the produce for two years an award be made for the same against Khudi Sk. The present appellants had also contended that the present respondent nos. 1 to 4 who are the sons of said Khudi Sk. had been erroneously recorded as bargadars under them in the draft records. The appellants prayed for a determination that said Khudi Sk. and not his said four sons was the bargadar of the disputed land. 2. DURING the pendency of the proceeding Khudi Sk. died. We understand that upon an application made by the owners there was substitution of the heirs of Khudi Sk. including the respondent nos. 1 to 4 who were already on record. The said substituted parties had contested the case by inter alia claiming that the respondents 1 to 4 and not Khudi Sk. were bargadars. On 16th November 1981 the Bhagchas Officer, Raninagar determined that during his lifetime Khudi. Sk. was the bargadar under the present appellants and his four sons, the respondents 1 to 4 were not bargadars as asserted by them. The Bhagchas Officer passed an award against the heirs of Khudi Sk. for a sum of Rs. 9486.71 as the price of the owner's share of the produce for the years in question. The Bhagchas Officer had observed that the heirs of the owner of the land might file an application before the authority under section 18 (1) of the Act for nominating one of the heirs of the deceased Khudi Sk. as bargadar. Being aggrieved thereby the respondents who are the heirs of Khudi Sk. preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The Bhagchas Officer had observed that the heirs of the owner of the land might file an application before the authority under section 18 (1) of the Act for nominating one of the heirs of the deceased Khudi Sk. as bargadar. Being aggrieved thereby the respondents who are the heirs of Khudi Sk. preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority modified the award by reducing the money value of the owner's share of the produce to Rs. 5,111.26 which would be payable by the heirs of Khudi Sk. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Bhagchas Officer that it was Khudi Sk. who had been a bargadar and his four sons were not bargadars during the lifetime of Khudi Sk. The appellate authority had set aside the directions given by the Bhagchas Officer regarding the correction of the entry made in the R. S. Records to the effect that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein were bargadars. 3. IN his judgment under appeal the learned Single Judge rightly did not interfere with the concurrent finding by the trial and the appellate authority that it was Khudi Sk. and not his four sons who had been bargadar of the land. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 have not preferred any appeal before us. Therefore, strictly it is not necessary for us to add our reasons for upholding the findings that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 were not bargadars in their own right but it was Khudi Sk. who was bargadar under the present appellants: In the instant case the entry of the names of the respondent no. 4 in the draft Record of Rights did not raise even a rebuttable presumption under sub-section (9) of section 51a of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Far less the said entry had any presumption of conclusiveness. Therefore, the authority under Chapter-III of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act were entitled to decide the status of the parties in accordance with law. 4. WITH respect to the directions given by the learned Single Judge regarding proposed proceeding under section 15a of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, The same cannot be sustained. The writ application before the learned trial judge arose out of a proceeding under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 4. WITH respect to the directions given by the learned Single Judge regarding proposed proceeding under section 15a of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, The same cannot be sustained. The writ application before the learned trial judge arose out of a proceeding under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Therefore, it was not within the scope of the writ application to give any direction regarding initiation of any proceeding under section 15a of the Act. On the death of Khudi Sk. his heirs had been brought on record not by reason of any order made under section 15a (1) proviso but by reason of filing of substitution application by the owners. The said heirs of Khudi Sk. were brought on record only for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not Khudi Sk. was liable to deliver the owner's share of the produce for two years in question and whether Khudi Sk. had been a bargadar till be died. The proceedings under section 15a of the Act are to be conducted in accordance with three sub-sections of the said section read with Rule 2a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules. Presumably, the attention of the learned trial judge was not drawn to sub-rule (2) of Rule' 2a which, inter alia, provides that in case of omission or failure on the part of the lawful heirs of a deceased bargadar to determine and nominate one of them for cultivating the land, all or any of the lawful heirs may within the prescribed time make an application before the officer or authority for nominating one of the lawful heirs of the bargadar. In the instant case no application had been yet been made by all or any of the heirs of the deceased bargadar Khudi Sk. and therefore, it was strictly not necessary to consider whether or not the authority or officer under section 18 of the Act ought to make nomination in terms of section 15a (1) proviso read with Rule 2a (2) mentioned above. We leave open the question whether at present any such determination or nomination can still be made for continuation of right of cultivation on the death of the deceased bargadar Khudi Sk. All questions relating to provisions of section 15a of the Act are, accordingly, left open. We leave open the question whether at present any such determination or nomination can still be made for continuation of right of cultivation on the death of the deceased bargadar Khudi Sk. All questions relating to provisions of section 15a of the Act are, accordingly, left open. The learned trial judge was not right in directing that the liability to pay the owner's share of the produce awarded against Khudi Sk. would devolve only upon his such heir who may be nominated under section 15a of the Act. Section 15a of the Act does not contain any provision to the effect that the liability to pay owner's share of produce due from the deceased bargadars shall be discharged only by such heirs of the deceased who may be nominated. The question of liability of the heir's and legal representatives for the money awarded in owner's share of the produce due from Khudi Sk. was not subject matter of the proceeding under section 18 (1) (a) and read with section 18 (2) of the Act. The award made by the Bhagchas Officer and affirmed by the appellate authority had been passed against all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased bargadar Khudi Sk. The award holders are at liberty to execute the said award in accordance with law and in accordance with Rule 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules. The said award is to be executed as far as practicable in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, we only observe that the execution of the award, if applied for, by the appellant shall proceed in accordance with law. 5. WE accordingly dispose of the appeal by modifying the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge. We set aside the directions made by the learned trial judge regarding suomotu initiation of proceeding under section 15a of the Act and also the findings and/or directions given regarding liability of the heirs of the deceased Khudi Sk. and in the manner of satisfying the money due under the award under section 18 (1) (a) of the Act. There will be no award as to costs. Appeal disposed of.