JUDGMENT This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision passed by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, North 24-Parganas, Barasat in B/Appeal Case No. 34 of 1993 arising out of Barga Case No. 25 of 1993 of Mouza-Natagram. 2. The present petitioner filed an application on 15th March, 1993 before the Revenue Authority for recording his same as bargadar on the basis of the possession in terms of Section 21B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. He stated that he was cultivating the land for long years under Johara Khatun Bibi. It should not be ignored that the entire land was belonged to Dinali Sardar and Johara Khatun Bibi is one of the co-heiress of Dinali Sardar along with other co-heirs having 1/4th share of the property. The petitioner's wife was also the co-heiress but the petitioner only claimed to be recorded as bargadar in respect of the share of Johara Katun Bibi while his petition was pending before the Revenue Authority, it is alleged that he was dispossessed by the present private opposite parties, who purchased the shares, after the filing of the application for recording of Johara Khatun Bibi on 26th March, 1993, and thereafter dispossessed the present petitioner. 3. An enquiry was held by the Revenue Authority and during enquiry, evidence was also recorded as adduced from both the sides end enquiring authority was pleased to dismiss the prayer for recording the same of the petitioner as bargadar only on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession since the purchase by the private opposite parties. This conclusion of the report supports the case that after the purchase, the petitioner was dispossessed. Whatever it may be, against that order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, but the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer limply echoed the concluding portion of the judgment of the enquiring authority that the order passed by the enquiring authority rejecting the recording of the name of the petitioner as bargadar cannot be entertained, as he was not in possession at that time. 4. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the possession, which has been accepted by the enquiring authority prior to the purchase, should be taken into consideration by the authority, concerned in the matter of recording the name of the petitioner as bargadar in respect of shares of Johara Khatun Bibi. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that mere possession cannot establish the claim for bargadarship and he relies on a decision of this High Court reported in (1) 1996 (2) Calcutta Law Times page 405. There is no dispute that the particular judgment referred to above, has laid down that in order to establish the claim of bargadarship, at least some receipts of delivering Bhag produce or some other evidences should be placed before the authority. But, in the instant case, it appears from the enquiry report that no receipts of delivering the Bhag produce could be produced by the petitioner. From the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is clear that he absolutely, relies on the provisions of Section 21B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 6. Section 21B of the said Act contemplates that a person who lawfully possesses the particular property and cultivates the same not being the member of the owner of the family, will be presumed to be a bargadar and whoever disputes that fact, burden of proving lies on the person who alleges that the person cultivating the land is not a bargadar. In the instant case, the possession prior to the transfer is an accepted fact so far as the enquiry report of the Revenue Officer is concerned and such possession cannot be ignored or the effect of such possession cannot be refused by subsequent dispossession by the subsequent purchasers. That apart, it is clear that the application for recording the name of the petitioner as bargadar in respect of share of Johara Khatun Bibi was filed prior to the transfer to the private opposite parties. Therefore, in the matter of disposing of the application, it is to be seen that during the period of Johara Khatun's ownership, the petitioner was in lawful possession of the property or not. Therefore, in the matter of disposing of the application, it is to be seen that during the period of Johara Khatun's ownership, the petitioner was in lawful possession of the property or not. The Revenue Authority as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority both have committed error by taking into consideration the fact of possession at the time of disposal of the application. They ought to have taken into consideration the question of possession at least at the time when the application for recording the name of the petitioner as bargadar was filed. The decision as referred to above, has not judged or dealt with the provisions of Section 21B of the said Act. Therefore, in view of the statutory provisions, I am not inclined to place any reliance on the said decision. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Officer, who enquired into the matter, cannot be supported as justified or legal. There is illegality in the orders and as such, both the orders challenged before this Court be set aside hereby and the matter be sent back to the Revenue Officer, Gaighata at Chandpara, District North 24-Parganas for recording out a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above and the basis of enquiry already made within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby disposed of accordingly.