JUDGMENT This writ application raises a short but important point of law concerning Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 and arises out of a notice dated 22nd August, 1990, issued by the Revenue Officer, Block Land and Land Reforms Office, Chanditalla Block I, Mashat, Hooghly, under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the "said Act". 2. The aforesaid notice has been challenged in the writ petition on several grounds. 3. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil, learned advocate, firstly submitted that since revisional settlement operations had not been completed when the impugned notice was issued, the same was without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 50A of the said Act. 4. Mr. Sil next submitted that the Revenue Officer, who had initiated the proceedings and had issued the impugned notice, was not specially empowered as contemplated by the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, read with Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, and on that ground also the proceedings initiated by the said Revenue Officer were liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Sil also submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act did not entitle the Revenue Officer, specially empowered in that behalf, to adjudicate on the question as to whether a person was in fact a bargadar or not. 6. The last, but by far the most significant submission of Mr. Sil was that under Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules", which was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, the Revenue Officer was empowered, on his own motion, to incorporate in the village record-of-rights any change on account of alteration in the mode of cultivation. Mr. Sil submitted that in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 specific mention had been made with regard to alteration in the mode of cultivation by a bargadar mentioned in clause (e) of Section 50 of the said Act. Mr. Sil submitted that the impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed as the same had been initiated by the Revenue Officer not on his own motion, (emphasis supplied), but on the basis of an application made by the private respondent No.6, Shri Jiban Santra. 7. Mr. Sil submitted that the impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed as the same had been initiated by the Revenue Officer not on his own motion, (emphasis supplied), but on the basis of an application made by the private respondent No.6, Shri Jiban Santra. 7. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Sil referred to and relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Muktiar Hussain Jamadar and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 1981 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 16, wherein the scope of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules was considered by this Court. Mr. Sil pointed out that in the said case this Court had held that except for starting a suo mota proceeding under Sub-rule (2) for recording the mode of cultivation in terms of clause (e) of Section 50, the Revenue Officer under Section 50 was not empowered to make any independent finding and he was required to revise the record-of-rights on the basis of orders passed by ether competent authorities. Mr. Sil pointed out that in the said case it was also held that while the Revenue Officer was empowered to start a suo mota proceeding for revising the record-of rights relating to the mode of cultivation, he was not entitled to do so on the basis of an application filed by any individual. 8. In this context Mr. Sil also referred to the "Explanation" to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules which had been incorporated by amendment after the above-mentioned decision in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar was pronounced. Mr. Sil submitted that without amending the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 itself, the Rule making authority was not competent to enlarge the scope thereof simply by adding an Explanation which ran contrary to the interpretation thereof by this Court. Mr. Sil submitted that the doctrine relating to the interpretation of statutes postulates that the provisions of a section in an enactment stands on its own footing and is to be understood and interpreted as it is framed. The "Explanation" to a section can never be treated to be part of the section and cannot be made to control the section itself. The "Explanation" to a section can never be treated to be part of the section and cannot be made to control the section itself. When a section has been interpreted by a Court, such interpretation becomes final and cannot be explained and/or interpreted differently simply by the addition of an Explanation which seeks to prevail over the interpretation of the Court. 9. In this connection Mr. Sil referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman, reported in AIR 1985 SC at page 582, and the (3) Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. The New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1970 SC at page 1292, which I shall revert to later. 10. Mr. Sil concluded his submissions by urging that since the impugned proceedings had been initiated on the application of the respondent No.6, which had been held by this Court to be beyond the competence of the Revenue Officer under Section 50 of the said Act read with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules, the impugned proceedings and the notice issued in connection therewith, were liable to be quashed. 11. Appearing for the State of the West Bengal and the other State respondents, Mr. Monoranjan Basu, learned advocate, submitted that the record-of-rights had been finally published in respect of the mouza where the lands forming the subject matter of the writ petition were situated and, consequently, proceedings under Section 50 of the said Act had been correctly taken, as the provisions of Section 50A of the said Act had no application after the record-of-rights had been finally published. In support of his submission Mr. Basu produced copies of the finally published record-of-rights pertaining to the lands in question. 12. Mr. Basu also produced a copy of a Notification No. 275-L. Ref. dated 11th May, 1989, issued by the Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (9A) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, read with Section 50 thereof, all Revenue Officers posted in the integrated set-up of land reforms administration were appointed to act as the Prescribed Authority under Section 50 of the aforesaid Act within their respective jurisdiction. Mr. Mr. Basu urged that the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Revenue Officer who had initiated the impugned proceedings was not specially empowered under Section 50 of the aforesaid Act was, therefore, untenable. 13. Mr. Basu then submitted that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules empowered the Revenue Officer to make necessary changes in the village record-of-rights on account of alteration in the mode of cultivation by a bargadar, after making such enquiry, including on the spot enquiry, as he thought fit and after giving the parties interested an opportunity of being heard. Mr. Basu submitted that the said provisions entitled the concerned Revenue Officer under Section 50 of the said Act to adjudicate on the question as to whether a person was a bargadar or not. 14. On the question relating to incorporation of the "Explanation" to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules, Mr. Basu submitted that the Rule making authority was always competent to add an Explanation to a particular Section or Rule in a Statute to explain the real and intended meaning of such Section or Rule. Mr. Basu submitted that by incorporating the said "Explanation", the Rule making authority had not intended to enlarge the scope of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21, but had only sought to explain and clarify what was really intended by the legislature in framing the said Rule, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar (supra). Mr. Basu also pointed out that in order to proceed suo-moto, the Revenue Officer was required to act on the basis of information received by him. The application made by the respondent No.6 was only to acquaint the Revenue Officer of the facts, and on receipt of such information, the Revenue Officer commended suo-moto proceedings. 15. The submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner relating to the provisions of Section 50A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the competence of the Revenue Officer to initiate the impugned proceedings under Section 50 of the said Act, have been adequately answered on behalf of the State by the production of the finally published record-of-rights and the Notification dated 11th May, 1989. 16. 16. The other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, however, require further consideration in the light of the findings of this Court in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar (supra). 17. Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, was amended several times. Sub-rule (2) was added to Rule 21 by Notification dated 19th September, 1978. The said Sub-rule underwent several amendments until it acquired its present shape. It is in its present shape that the scope of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 fell for consideration in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar (supra). While interpreting the said Sub-rule, this Court categorically held as follows:– "It will however appear that excepting in the case of starting a suo moto proceeding under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 recording the mode of cultivation in terms of clause (e) of S. 50, the Revenue Officer under S. 50, is not authorised to make any independent finding by causing enquiries but he is required to revise the record-of-rights simply on the basis of the orders passed by other competent authorities in appropriate proceedings when such orders are made available to him Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 makes it abundantly clear that in respect of the mode of cultivation by a Bargadar under clause (e) of S. 50, the Revenue Officer himself has a power to start a suo moto proceeding for revising the record-of-rights relating to mode of cultivation and he has been empowered to hold a spot enquiry including other enquiries and after giving the parties affected reasonable opportunities of being heard, he has been vested with the authority to decide the mode of cultivation and to revise the existing record-of-rights in that regard. As in the instant case, the Revenue Officer purported to exercise jurisdiction under S. 50 (e) of the Land Reforms Act for adjudicating the application made before him by the alleged bargadar and as in entertaining such application, the Revenue Officer himself intended to decide the mode of cultivation by causing enquiry, the said action on the part of the Revenue Officer is absolutely without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 read with S. 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act." 18. The ratio of the aforesaid findings is :– i) Except in the case of starting a Suo moto proceeding under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules, for recording the mode of cultivation in accordance with the provisions of clause (e) of Section 50 of the said Act, the Revenue Officer is not entitled to adjudicate on the rights of the parties, but he is required to revise the record-of-rights simply on the basis of orders passed by other competent authorities. ii) The Revenue Officer is empowered under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules, read with clause (e) of Section 50 of the said Act, to initiate suo moto proceedings, cause enquiries, including on the spot enquiries and to determine the mode of cultivation and to revise the existing record-of-rights in that regard, but he is not entitled to exercise jurisdiction under the said provisions for deciding the mode of cultivation on an application made by an alleged bargadar. 19. Having regard to the wording of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21, I do not see any reason to differ with the views expressed in Muktiar Hussain Jamadar's case (supra). 20. This brings us to the next question regarding incorporation of the "Explanation" to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 after the decision of this Court in the above-mentioned case. The said "Explanation" was added by way of amendment by Notification No. 1998 L. Ref/20R-3/80 (Rt. I) dated 2nd May, 1981, along with other amendments to Rule 21, and reads as follows :– "For the purpose of this Sub-rule, the Revenue Officer shall be deemed to act his own motion even where an application or representation has been made to him by any person claiming to be entitled to be recorded as bargadar or by any other person on his behalf, not being a legal practitioner or an advocate." 21. It is quite obvious that the said "Explanation" was incorporated with the intention of nullifying the interpretation of this Court with regard to the scope of the Revenue Officer's powers under Sub-rule (2), thus seeking to enlarge the scope of the said provision beyond the parameters explained in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar. Such a course of action, in my view, is not permissible and/or available to the Rule-making authorities. Such a course of action, in my view, is not permissible and/or available to the Rule-making authorities. If Sub-rule (2) itself had been amended to enable the Revenue Officers to initiate proceeding to determine the mode or cultivation, even on the basis or applications filed by interested parties, the State could have probably defended such action. That, however, is not the case here. The addition of an "Explanation" cannot, in my view, set at nought the judgment delivered by this Court and any attempt to do so must be held to illegal and unconstitutional. 22. The Supreme Court in several cases had occasion to consider the scope of an "Explanation" appended to a particular Section in an enactment. After considering the various earlier decisions, the Supreme Court in the case of S. Sundaram v. V. R. Pattabiraman, reported in AIR 1985 SC at page 582, observed as follows :– "Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is– (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) where there is any obsecurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at nought the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same." 23. From the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it will be amply clear that the object of an "Explanation", inter alia, is to clarify any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, but it cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof. It can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment. 24. In the instant case, the true purport and intendment of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 had already been interpreted by this Court before the "Explanation" was added by way of amendment. Any Explanation sought to be added subsequent to such interpretation could only be in aid of such interpretation and not to nullify the effect thereof. It being well settled that an "Explanation" is not a substantive provision in itself and is merely meant to clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision, the same cannot subsequently be incorporated by way of amendment to add to the meaning of the main enactment, which had been explained and interpretated by the Court, in a manner which runs contrary to such interpretation. It was within the powers of the Rule-making authorities to alter the provisions of Sub-rule (2), if it felt the need to do so, in view of the decision in Muktiar Hussain Jamadar's case (supra), but it was not within their powers to nullify the effect of the decision of the Court by adding the "Explanation" which ran counter to the interpretation given by the Court. 25. In my view, the State Government has not been able to answer the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner on the aforesaid point. The impugned proceedings having been initiated on the basis of the application made by the respondent No.6, the same must be held to be invalid and without legal sanction, as was held in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar (supra) The incorporation of the "Explanation" to Sub-rule (2) has not altered the position in any way, as, in my view, the said "Explanation", in so far as it runs contrary to the decision of this Court in the above-mentioned case, must by ignored. 26. The writ application, therefore, succeeds on the aforesaid ground and is allowed. 26. The writ application, therefore, succeeds on the aforesaid ground and is allowed. The impugned proceedings, being Barga Case No. 2316/TB/90 initiated by the Respondent No.2, being the Revenue Officer in the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Office, Chanditolla Block-I, Mashat, District-Hooghly, purportedly under Sections 50 and 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the notices issued in connection therewith, are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned advocates of the parties on this undertaking to apply for and to obtain a certified copy thereof.