Judgment : Ray J. : This appeal is directed against order dated June 22, 1987 passed by the learned trial judge in C. R. No. 3891(W) of 1984. 2. The petitioner moved a writ petition, inter alia, contending that the patta granted by the State Government in favour of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 was illegal and should be cancelled and the patta in respect of the said land should be granted in favour of the appellant in view of the fact that the father of the appellant was a bargidar under the erstwhile landlord whose land had vested under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. It is contended by the appellant that since the appellant had been in possession of the said land even after vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the State Government should not give settlement of patta to other persons without recovering possession from him and for the ends of social justice he should have been granted patta because his father was a bargadar and after his father be had been possessing the land for a number of years. In support of this contention reliance was placed by the appellant to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (1) Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar and Others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1471 . 3. We are afraid, the decision made by the Supreme Court in the slid case has no manner of application in the facts of this case. It may be noted in this connection that the right of an erstwhile bargadar whose interest vested free from encumbrances under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act to get a raiyati settlement by the State has not been recognised by the legislature and no provision for giving settlement of the said land to the said bargadar has been made. Oil the contrary, under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act there is a provision that if the interest of the landlord vests under the Land Reforms Act, the bargadar in possession should be taken into consideration for the purpose of raiyati settlement provided certain conditions are fulfilled. Oil the contrary, under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act there is a provision that if the interest of the landlord vests under the Land Reforms Act, the bargadar in possession should be taken into consideration for the purpose of raiyati settlement provided certain conditions are fulfilled. It is, therefore, quite clear that a bargadar cannot claim as a matter of fight tile settlement either on the score of social justice by stealing a march over other landless persons or under any legal right by getting any preference over any other person. The State Government is quite free to consider the cases of landless persons and to make settlement and erstwhile bargadar may however ask for consideration of his case along with other eligible persons. 4. That apart, in the facts of the case, no interference need be made for the simple reason that the present appellant did not ask for settlement from the State Government for long years and had been silently enjoying the usufructs of the vested land for years after years, and it is only when the raiyati patta had been given to the other respondents who are landless persons, an application was sought to be made by the present appellant to give settlement of the said land to him. In our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that in the facts and circumstances, no direction should be given to the State Government when already the settlement has been made to the other eligible persons. In the result, no interferences is called for in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed treating the same as on day's list. The application for interim order is also disposed of along with this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. K.M. Yusuf, J. : I agree.