JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against an order of the writ Court dismissing the appellant's/writ petitioner's application directed against the recording of Ludhu Gorain's name as bargadar. 2. The said private person is a private respondent herein. 3. The complaint made by the writ petitioners is that Joy Gorain is the owner, that Ludhu Gorain his brother-in-law was never a cultivator giving him a share of produce, and was not a bargadar. 4. An earlier application made in the department by Ludhu was withdrawn by him in 1977 and barga recording failed. 5. In spite thereof, Ludhu made another attempt some four years later for a barga recording in his name once again. 6. The Revenue Officer quickly allowed the application in August 1981. The appeal against it in the department was dismissed in 1997. 7. It appears that the department has proceeded on the basis that a fresh consideration of Ludhu's application once again could be made on the basis of Section 50 (e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 8. The said sub-section permits maintenance of upto date record of rights by incorporating changes therein, on account of alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example, by a bargadar. 9. Had the petition of Ludhu on the second accasion been, that, although he was not a bargadar earlier he had then become a bargadar, and the change should be recorded, the jurisdiction of the department to proceed would be unchallengable. 10. But, that was not the way Ludhu's petition ran. His claim, and the evidence recorded by the B. L. & L. R. O. in favour of Ludhu is to the effect that he was cultivating nearly for a decade before 1981. 11. A positive finding is entered that Ludhu was cultivating in 1970. 12. Thus, the department proceeded not to record a change but to give Ludhu a second chance for making a barga application. 13. This is impermissible in law and the B.L. & L.R.O. had no jurisdiction to allow a reagitation of the matter without any fresh cause. 14. Further, because of amendments introduced in the definition of Family, and the making of such definition applicable to Section 14K(c) of the said Act, a brother-in-law cannot now be a bargadar. The Legislative change came in the year 2000 with retrospective effect being given to it from 1969. 15. 14. Further, because of amendments introduced in the definition of Family, and the making of such definition applicable to Section 14K(c) of the said Act, a brother-in-law cannot now be a bargadar. The Legislative change came in the year 2000 with retrospective effect being given to it from 1969. 15. The retrospective effect has not been struck down, at least not as yet. 16. Thus, a barga recording in favour of a brother-in-law cannot now be sustained when the matter is challenged before us in a writ petition. Permitting such recording to remain would be contrary to the Statute. 17. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The prayers in the writ petition are allowed and it is ordered that the name of Ludhu Gorain, if recorded as a bargadar already, shall be struck out from the record of rights. There will be no order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given as expeditiously as possible.