JUDGMENT 1. THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated the 6th September 1985 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court summarily dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, confirming the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 17th July, 1985 in case No. L. R. (A) 48 of 1979, on the grounds made out in the Memo of Appeal. 2. IT is contended by the Appellant-Writ petitioner (herein-after referred to as petitioner) that his father late Bejoy Krishna Nayak was bargadar in respect of the disputed C. S. plot Nos. 185 186 under Khatian No. 180 J. L. No. 142 within Mouza-Dakshin Battola, District 24-parganas admeasuring 4.23 acres of land under the owner thereof, Kinkar Charan sarkar. On the death of the said Kinkar Charan Sarkar his window Tarubala Sarkar inherited the said land and became the owner thereof. Both Kinkar Charan and Tarubala used to received the shares of bhag produce from his Butrga lar Bejoy Krishna, and grant receipts therefor. The said Bargadar had tried on 19th November, 1977 leaving behind the petitioner, Bibhuti Bhusan, his mother Hem Prova, his younger brother Hari Krishna, and four sisters, Gouiri Bala Nayak, Karuna Jana Gita pramanik and Jamuna Ojha as his legal heirs. The petitioner continued to ultimate the disputed lands as bargadar for himself and on behalf of the aforesaid other heirs of Bejoy Krishna under the said Tarubala Sarkar. He had as well filed applications against the said Tarubala under Section 18 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955 (herein-after shortened into Act) before the Bulagchas officer, Basanti, District-24-paraganas (hereinafter referred to as B. C. O) for acceptance of the owner's share of produce in 1978 and 1979 for the yeans 1384 and 1385 B. S, being B. C. case Nos. 52 of 1978 and 69 of 1978 respectively. The petitioner was directed to deposit the owner's share of produce of the disputed lands or the sale proceeds thereof to the State hank of India in terms of the orders dated 31. 8. 84 passed therein which he did. It subsequently transpired that the Respondent No. 3 Mst. 52 of 1978 and 69 of 1978 respectively. The petitioner was directed to deposit the owner's share of produce of the disputed lands or the sale proceeds thereof to the State hank of India in terms of the orders dated 31. 8. 84 passed therein which he did. It subsequently transpired that the Respondent No. 3 Mst. Marjina khatun Bibi, had filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act on 10th October, 1974 before the B. C. O. concerned against the aforesaid recorded Bargadar Bejoy Krishna for termination of his cultivation of the disputed lands contending, inter-alia, that she had purchased the said lands from the said Tarubala Sarkar on 3rd June. 1974 corresponding to 20th Jaistha, 1381 B. S. being registered as bhagchas Case No. 81 of 1974. The heirs of the said Bejoy Krishna had also been subsequently impleaded therein. The said case had been allowed by the said B. C O. by his order dated 25th June, 1977 for the reasons recorded therein. On appeal being preferred there against by the petitioner, being L. R. Appeal no. 48 of 1979 before the sub-Divisional Officer at Alipore, 24-paraganas being the Appellate Authority under Chapter III of the Act the same was also heard by the Appellate Authority concerned, and dismissed by its judgment and order dated 17th July, 1985. 3. BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17th july, 1985 passed by the said Appellate Authority in the said L. R. appeal no. 48 of 1979, the petitioner had moved the relevant Writ Application before this Court which had also been summarily rejected by the learned single Judge of this Court by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 6th September, 1985. Hence the instant Appeal by the Writ-petitioner, Bibhuti bhusan Nayak. 4. UNDISPUTEDLY Bejoy Krishna Nayak was the recorded Bargadar in respect of the aforesaid disputed plot Nos. 185 and 186, under Khatian No. within Mouza-Dakshin Battola, District-24-paraganas, under the owner thereof Kinkar Charan Sarkar. On the demise of Kinkar Charan Sarkar, his widow Tarubala Sarkar became the owner thereof, and the said Bargadar had continued to cultivate the same under her. The Barga possession of Bejoy Krishna appears to have been duly recorded in the relevant Records of-Rights. The Respondent No. 3, Mst. On the demise of Kinkar Charan Sarkar, his widow Tarubala Sarkar became the owner thereof, and the said Bargadar had continued to cultivate the same under her. The Barga possession of Bejoy Krishna appears to have been duly recorded in the relevant Records of-Rights. The Respondent No. 3, Mst. Marjina Khatun Bibi, is stated to have purchased the disputed plots from the said Tarubala Sarkar under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 3. 6. 1974, and became the owner thereof. She had filed an application under Section 18 (1) (b) of the act before the B.C.O. concerned against the said recorded Bargadar Bejoy krishna for termination of his cultivation of the same in respect of 2.87 acres of land thereof, being B. C. case No. 81 of 1974, on the grounds made out therein. The said case appears to have been contested by the said Bargadar. The learned B. C. O. concerned, upon due hearing and upon consideration of the evidence presented by the contending parties had come to the findings that the opposite-party therein the Bargadar Bejoy Krishna Nayak was a wilful defaulter in delivering the owner's share of produce, that he possessed land in excess of the ceiling limit, and that he does not Private the disputed land personally and his Barga right was accordingly terminable there for. By his Judgment and order dated 25th of May, 1977 he had, accordingly, allowed the aforesaid B. C. Case no. 81 of 1974 and had directed the Opposite-party-Bargadar to deliver khas possession of the disputed land to the petitioner Mst. Marjina Khatun bibi within the three months from the date of the order for the reasons recorded therein at length. On appeal being preferred there against being l. R. Appeal No. 48 of 1971 the appellate Authority, the respondent No. 1 as well had dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 17th July 1985 only on the finding, in complete agreement with the learned B. C. O., that the Bargadar concerned does not personally cultivate the case land. He, however was not satisfied with the other grounds namely that the Bargadar had been in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling limit, that he had wilfully defaulted in delivering the share of Barga produce to the owner and that the Respondent Mst. Marjina Khatun Bibi required the disputed land for her personal cultivation. He, however was not satisfied with the other grounds namely that the Bargadar had been in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling limit, that he had wilfully defaulted in delivering the share of Barga produce to the owner and that the Respondent Mst. Marjina Khatun Bibi required the disputed land for her personal cultivation. For the reasons recorded at length by him he had accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the learned B. C. O. that the Bargadar does not personally cultivate the case land and had directed the Appellant - Bargadar to make over possession of the case land to the Respondent who was further directed to get the land cultivated by any person referred to in Section 49 of the act, after obtaining permission from the Authorised officer in terms thereof. There seems to be nothing wrong in the judgment and order passed by the said Appellate Authority upon due consideration of the entire materials on record calling for interference by the Writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court cannot certainly be called upon to exercise the appellate jurisdiction for deciding the correctness or otherwise of the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority under the relevant Statute as sadly sought to be exercised by the Writ Petitioner - Appellant. Upon the premises above the court below does not at all appear to us to have erred many way in summarily rejecting the Writ petition as it did, by passing the impugned judgment and order. There seems little substance in the instant Appeal which should clearly fail as it must. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. 5. WHILE parting with the matter we would like to add that it would oddly appear from the relevant Records-of-Rights on record to the disputed C. S. Plot No. 185 comprised of 407 acres of land and the disputed C. S. Plot No. 186 comprised of. 06 acres of land. The attested R. S. Record-of-Rights would, however, indicate that the disputed Plot No. 185 comprises of 2.67 acres of land. The Respondent No. 3, Mst. 06 acres of land. The attested R. S. Record-of-Rights would, however, indicate that the disputed Plot No. 185 comprises of 2.67 acres of land. The Respondent No. 3, Mst. Marjina khatun Bibi, had filed the relevant application under Section 18 (l) (b) of the act before the B. C. O. concerned against the Bargadar Bejoy Krishna for termination of his cultivation in respect of 2.67 acres of land in the said plot Nos. 185 and 186, registered as B. C. Case No. 81 of 1974, which was allowed by him (B. C. O.) and confirmed on appeal by the Appellate authority in the relevant L. R. Appeal No. 48 of 1971 on the grounds indicated above. The orders passed therein would certainly apply to the case land, described and detailed in the relevant application and not to alter land which is not the subject-matter of the said proceedings. Appeal dismissed.