G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order, dated 2nd February, 1987 and 20th February, 1987 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 9547 (W) of 1985. ( 2 ) THE appellant moved a writ petition before this court inter alia, challenging the initiation of a proceeding under Section 1933 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the Bhagchas Officer, Indus in the district of Bankura on the ground that on the face of the petition made under Section 198 by the respondent No. 5, no proceeding under Section 19b could be maintained. It is the case of the appellant that he is a recorded bargadar in respect of the disputed land under the landlords and he is under threat of being dispossessed by the respondent No. 5. ( 3 ) EVEN if it is admitted for argument's sake that the appellant was prevented from cultivating the said land, it cannot be contended that by such action the bargadar has been dispossessed by the landlords for which an application under Section 19b is maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge has not accepted the said contention, but directed the Bhagchas Officer to dispose of the said application in accordance with law. ( 5 ) IN our view, the learned Trial Judge has given a correct decision in the matter. It appears from the pleadings made in the said application under Section 19b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act that the appellant has contended that the co-bargadar, namely, the appellant in collusion with the landlords have prevented the applicant from cultivating the disputed land and by that process he has been dispossessed. We are of the opinion that. the pleadings made in an application under Section 19b of the West. Bengal Land Reforms, Act should not be interpreted in a highly technical manner or in a pedantic way. Such applications are usually presented by poor and often illiterate bargadars and these applications should be considered in the proper perspective and in its broad features. On the face of the application it; does not appear that such an application is not maintainable and on that score alone the same is liable to be rejected without going into the merits of the case. On the face of the application it; does not appear that such an application is not maintainable and on that score alone the same is liable to be rejected without going into the merits of the case. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed treating the same as on day's list. We, howsoever, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on. the merits of the case and the Bhagchas Officer will be free to dispose of the matter after considering the relevant facts and circumstances and the evidences to adduced by the parties. ( 7 ) NO further order is passed on the application for interim order which is also disposed of without passing any order on the same. K. M. Yusuf, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed