ORDER: The writ petitioners is these writ petitions are all subsequent purchasers by registered Deed of Sale on different dates between March 19, 1962 till January 11, 1985 had challenged the actions of the respondents, in the matter of distribution of land by settlement, in favour of third parties, treating the lands as “vested lands” 2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that after the said purchase, the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, paid rents to the State, which were accepted by the local Tahasildar and rent receipts were granted in favour of the petitioners accordingly, they became direct tenant, under the State and, as such, the writ petitioners cannot be evicted by any dubious method by treating the lands as “vested lands”, as there was a Big Raiyat proceeding started subsequently against the transferor of the writ petitioners, under s. 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 195, in which the present writ petitioners were not made parties. 3. Mr. Sanoimoy Panda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners has drawn attention in the case of Abdul Haque & Anr v. State of West Bengal & Ors. since reported in All India Reporter 1964 Calcutta, at page 183, in which D. N. Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) held that by acceptance of rent from the petitioner, some sort of “tenancy-right” has been created in favour of the petitioner and such right cannot be taken away, without taking recourse to law. 4. The said view had also been followed in the case of Panch Molla v. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 1980(2) Calcutta Law Journal, page 1 by G. N. Ray, J. of this Court, although his lordship had not referred to the said judgment of D. N. Sinha, J. Similar view also has been taken by Sudhamay Basu, J. (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Pravash Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1977 (2) Calcutta Law Journal, page 246 (: 1977 CHN 738). 5. Mr. Panda, was candid, however, in referring to a recent single Bench judgment of this Court delivered by Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. in the case of Sulumar Adhikary & Ors. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 1977 (2) Calcutta Law Journal, page 246 (: 1977 CHN 738). 5. Mr. Panda, was candid, however, in referring to a recent single Bench judgment of this Court delivered by Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. in the case of Sulumar Adhikary & Ors. State of West Bengal & Anr. since reported in All India Reporter 1986 Calcutta page 261, wherein his Lordship referring to the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Panchu Molla and Probhas Chandra Mondal (ibid) in paragraph 4 of the said judgment his lordship recorded only distinguishing features in Sukumar Adhikari’s case (supra) hat the name of the petitioner was not mutated, as raiyat in Sukumar Adhikary’s case although the petitioner paid “rent” to the State Government upto 1382 B. S. 6. Mr. Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J, however, had no occasion to consider the judgment of D. N. Sinha, J. in the case of Abdul Haque & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & ors. (supra), as in the said case, it has been held by D. N. Singh, J. that “if the lands did vest in Government and if Government had the right to lease out the lands to the petitioners, then by acceptance of rent, the petitioners have become tenants.” 7. Mr. Panda further referred to the Circular of Board of Revenue whereby “the principle for settlement of land” has been laid down by the State Government after passing of the Notification, under s. 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, that is after the date of vesting. 8. In my view as per clear provision of s. 4 of the Notification an effect of vesting of estates in the State if no possession has been taken in respect of the surplus land and/or excess land from any raiyat more so the said surplus and/or excess land was being settled at the subsequent period in favour of subsequent transferee on acceptance of rent the said transferee becomes tenant or acquires some sort of tenancy right direct under the State and cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. 9. The said view has been accepted by D. N. Singh J. in the case of Abdul Haque & anr. 9. The said view has been accepted by D. N. Singh J. in the case of Abdul Haque & anr. v. State of West Bengal & ors (supra) when His Lordship repelled the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the State who had made an attempt to submit that the rent was accepted “without prejudice to the rights of the State.” 10. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in the said judgment of D. N. Sinha J. and hold that the writ petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land by treating the land as “vested land” merely because no mutation has been granted in favour of the writ petitioners. 11. In the result these writ petitioners are entitled to succeed and the Rules are made absolute and the impugned method of treating the lands as “vested lands” is set aside. 12. The respondents are permanently restrained from settling the lands in favour of the third parties except in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Rules made absolute.