Judgment G. N. Ray, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 6, 1984 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Rule no. 8640 (W) of 1978. The writ petitioners are the respondent DOS. 1 to 18. The said writ petitioners contended in the writ petition that they were Bargadars under the erstwhile intermediaries and in the Revisional Record-of-Rights finally framed and finally published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, their names were recorded as Bargadars. Accordingly after the vesting of the superior interest of the intermediary, they had been owing and possessing the land in the capacity of Bargadar and, therefore, they claim for settlement of the land by the Government. They however came to learn that on the basis of the recommendation of the Block Level Land Advisory Committee. some other persons were going to be settled with the said land and against such threatened injury the writ petition was moved.. The learned Trial Judge allowed the writ petition by restraining the appellants from making any settlement of the lands mentioned in the writ petition and dispossessing the writ petitioners from the said schedule lands. The learned Trial Judge also restrained the appellants from giving any effect to the impugned notice dated September 18, 1978 being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. In the said notice, the recommendation of the Block Level Land Advisory Committee was referred to. It appears that the persons whose names had been recommeded by the Block Level Advisory Comittee thereafter made an application for being parties respondents in the writ proceeding and they were added as parties respondents. But unfortunately in the Memo. of appeal the names of such added respondents have• not been included and it is also unfortunate that the learned Counsel for the appellants has not appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The learned Counsel for the added respondents has, however, appeared and has submitted that the writ petitioners have no right to get settlement of the Hind as a matter of course. Bargadars of intermediaries cannot claim retention of such lands because the lands of the intermediaries have vested free from encumbrances and Barga right is an encumbrance and the law is well settled on the said point by several decisions of this court. Bargadars of intermediaries cannot claim retention of such lands because the lands of the intermediaries have vested free from encumbrances and Barga right is an encumbrance and the law is well settled on the said point by several decisions of this court. The learned Counsel has also contended that the Land Advisory Committee has been set up at Block level under the orders of the Board of Revenue and the recommendation of the said Advisory Committee is required to be taken into consideration at the time of settlement of the vested lands and for the aforesaid purpose the learned Counsel for the added respondents has referred to the provisions of Rule 20A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1965. It appears to us that the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the added respondents are of substance and should be accepted. Bargadars under the erstwhile intermediaries have not been given any right under the said Act to be recognised as a Raiyat after the vesting of the interest of the erstwhile intermediaries and the lands of the erstwhile intermediaries must vest free from encumbrances including the right of Barga, if any. The erstwhile Bargadars therefore cannot claim any special right of settlement of the lands possessed by them as bargadars and after the vesting of the said lands they may make representation to the State Government to get settlement of the said 'land on compassionate grounds. It also appears to us that the Block Level Advisory Committee has been set up by the Government to get advice about the settlement of vested lands in favour of landless persons. Accordingly, the recommendation made by the Block Level Advisory Committee cannot be held to be wholly illegal and to he kept out of consideration for the purpose of settling the vested lands. 2. In the circumstances in our view the writ petitioner respondents have miserably failed to make out any case for settlement of the said land in their favour as a matter of right and to ask for an injunction restraining the appellants from taking into consideration the recommendation made by the Block Level Advisory Committee. 3. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned judge is set aside. 3. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned judge is set aside. The appellants will he entitled to consider the case of settlement of vested lands referred to in the writ petition to the deserving persons in accordance with law and will also he entitled to take into consideration the recommendation made by the Block Level Land Advisory Committee. It is, however, made clear that the writ petitioner respondents will be entitled to make representation for consideration of their case along with other eligible candidates and the said appellant will he free to consider such representation on merits. There will be no order as to costs. Sachi Kanta Hazari, J ,-I agree. Appeal allowed.