JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.: 1. Be an indenture dated 13th June, 1949 the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest settled the land, which was a fallow one, held in khas with permanent 'Mokarari' right in favour of Birbhum District Sports Association on certain conditions. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that one of the conditions was that the said land can not be used for the purpose other than sports activities. Pursuant to the said settlement the District Sports Association has already constructed a stadium which was named after the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. It is alleged that a part of the said land has now been sought to be utilised for construction of Rabindra Sadan. Now the petitioner has come up with this application seeking the following reliefs: "(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents including the respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Birbhum to act according to law and to regularise the entire matter on payment of suitable compensation at present market rate and on payment of such compensation directing the petitioner to execute appropriate deed according to law. (b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to 'Produce this Hon'ble Court all relevant records including regulation and/or orders of the Birbhum District Sports Association on the basis of which 2 bighas of land was illegally transferred in favour of Rabindra Sadan Committee so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing any appropriate order and by passing appropriate order." 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Banerjee, on the other hand, contends that the allegation is in respect of certain terms and conditions of the settlement. 4. In such cases, it is a private dispute which can be thrashed out in a civil court. Secondly, he contends that by reason of the Estates Acquisition Act, the petitioner cannot claim any subsisting right in the property which stood vested in the State and the said District Sports Association became the direct tenant under the State. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length. 6. It appears that the land originally belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner who had permanent 'Mokarari' right. The character of the land was fallow. The land was settled with the District Sports Association by a registered Indenture of 'Ekrarnama'. The same contains certain conditions. 5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length. 6. It appears that the land originally belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner who had permanent 'Mokarari' right. The character of the land was fallow. The land was settled with the District Sports Association by a registered Indenture of 'Ekrarnama'. The same contains certain conditions. But the tenor of the said document shows that it was a permanent settlement on condition that the land has to be used for a particular purpose. Admittedly a stadium has been constructed and the purpose was fulfilled. Therefore, the predecessor-in-interest could not claim reversal of the settlement. In the mean time the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 have come into force. The rights of the intermediary stood vested in the State with the issue of the notification under section 4 thereof. Thus, the right of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as an intermediary, on the issue of the notification under section 4 of the said Act stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The District Sports Association became the raiyat in respect thereof under the State. The petitioner claimed 'Chirasthayee Mokarari' right in the fallow land by the said indenture with certain permanent rights, which is not a leave or licence. 7. The word 'Mokarari' means perpetual. It implies that the tenancy is permanent heritable and transferable and that the rent is fixed in perpetuity (Mahanand Sahai & Ors. vs. Mussmat Sayedunissa Bibi, 12 CWN 154: 8 CLJ 525). The word 'Mokarari' means with fixed rent. When applied to a tenure, it means a tenure held at fixed and permanent rate of rent (Gayratulla vs. Girish Chandra Bhaumik, 12 CWN 175). The word may also import perpetual fixity but that is not the necessary meaning of it (The Government of Bengal vs. Nawab Jafur Hossein Khan, 5 MIA 467; Nabendra Kishore Roy vs. Chowdhury Mian & Ors., AIR 1931 Calcutta 265: 52 CLJ 583). It alone raised no presumption that a tenure is intended to be herridetary (Sheo Prasad vs. Kalidas, ILR 5 Calcutta 543; Bishen Prasad vs. Parameswar, ILR 15 Calcutta 342). The word 'Mokarari' has different connotation when it is associated with different suffix or prefix, as the case may be, such as 'Mokarari Istimrari' or 'Mourasri Mokarari'. 'Istimrari' may not be hereditary but Mourasri definitely gives a hereditary right. The word 'Mokarari' has different connotation when it is associated with different suffix or prefix, as the case may be, such as 'Mokarari Istimrari' or 'Mourasri Mokarari'. 'Istimrari' may not be hereditary but Mourasri definitely gives a hereditary right. Inasmuch as the word 'Moueasri' means through generation. Section 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provided that "A raiyat holding at a rent or rate of rent, fixed in perpetuity- (a) Shall be subject to the provisions with respect to the transfer of; and succession to, the holding as the holder of a permanent tenure...." Sub-section (2) provided that "sections 23A to 38 (both inclusive) shall not apply to raiyats holding at fixed rates, even though such raiyats have a right of occupancy in the lands or their holdings." Thus, section 18 does not make all the incidence of a permanent tenure applicable to a raiyat holding at fixed rates, but makes only the provisions with respect to transfer and succession applicable (Nilmoni vs. Mathuranath, 5 CLJ 413; 4 CWN Clix). The word transfer includes a lease, a fixed raiyat can therefore, grant lease in the same way as a permanent tenure holder can (Hari Mohan vs. Atul Krishna, 19 CWN 1127) followed in Raj Kumar vs. Ramaki Mohan, AIR 1927 Cal 878 and a series of decisions. 8. Thus, the petitioners have claimed to hold the property in khas with 'Mokarari' right. Thus, until the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 particularly on the date of execution of the document in 1949 the petitioner's predecessor was a raiyat with fixed rent in respect of the property subject to the right to grant lease. By the time the Estate Acquisition Act had come into force the petitioners were not the owners of the property. They might then be intermediaries or raiyats under whom the respondent District Sports Association was a raiyat or an under-raiyat, as the case may be. Bengal Tenancy Act stood repealed by reason of section 3 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act by implication. 9. Be that as it may by reason of section 4 of the 1953 Act, on the appointed date all estates stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1953 Act applies to all estates and rights of every intermediaries in such estate. 9. Be that as it may by reason of section 4 of the 1953 Act, on the appointed date all estates stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1953 Act applies to all estates and rights of every intermediaries in such estate. By reason of clause (d) of section 5 every nonagricultural tenant holding under an intermediary, were bound to pay the rent to the State. By reason of clause (c) subject to section 6(3) of the 1953 Act a nonagricultural tenant holding any land as an intermediary until Chapter VI was given effect to, and every raiyat holding non-agricultural land under an intermediary, shall hold the same directly under the State, as if the State have been the intermediary and on the same terms and conditions. By reason of section 52 of the 1953 Act the provisions of Chapters II, III, V and VII shall apply with such modification as may be necessary mutatis mutandis to raiyats and under-raiyat, as if such raiyats and under-raiyats were intermediaries and the land held by them were estates and person holding under a raiyat or an under-raiyat were deemed intermediaries for the purpose of clauses (c) and (d) of section 5 of the 1953 Act. 10. From the deed, it appears that it was an indenture of settlement. Thus the property which was held in Khas with 'Mokarari' right was settled in favour of the District Sports Association and thus the property with Chirasthai Mokarari interest, as held by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, having been settled with the respondents, the respondents became a raiyat and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners became an intermediary. Or in other words the petitioner's predecessors remained a raiyat and the District Sports Association became an under raiyat. The said settlement contained certain encumbrances with regard to return of the land on certain contingencies to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. But by reason of section 4 of the 1953 Act on the issue of the notification under section 4 the interest of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner vested in the State, if he was in intermediary, free from all encumbrances and the said District Sports Association became a tenant or raiyat under the State on the same terms and conditions towards the State, and the rent became payable to the State by the District Sports Association. But as soon the notification under section 49 was published, if the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was a raiyat, became deemed intermediary and the District Sports Association if an under-raiyat became a raiyat under the State. Thus, the land having been vested under the Estates Acquisition Act free from all encumbrances it is no more open for the petitioner claiming through his predecessor-in-interest to assert any right. 11. The estate as defined in section 2(f) of the Estates Acquisition Act includes part of an estate on part of tenure. The word tenure has not been defined in the 1953 Act. By reason of section 2 (p) it shall bear the same meaning as has been assigned to the term in the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. Thus, even if the land was a fallow land and the tenancy that was created was a nonagricultural tenancy still then it being an estate the same stood vested. By reason of section 5 sub-section (c) of the 1953 Act on the issue of the notification under section 4 a non-agricultural tenant holding any land under any intermediary or a raiyat holding any land under an intermediary shall hold the same directly under the State as if the State has been the intermediary on the same terms and conditions immediately before the date of vesting. Therefore, even if the terms of the non-agricultural tenancy as contained in the deed remains effective it remains effective in favour of the State to whom the land was vested. 12. Now, all these controversies have become immaterial so far as non-agricultural land is concerned after the amendment brought about in the definition of 'land' in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1954 and repeal of the W.B. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 by West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 which came into effect from 7th of August, 1969 retrospectively. The said amendment having been given effect to on 7th August, 1969 the right, even if it could have been raised by the petitioner, is no more available. 13. Section 6 of the said 1953 Act under sub-section (1) permitted retention of non-agricultural land in khas possession including the land held under him by any person, who is not a tenant, by leave or licence, to the extent of 15 acres. 13. Section 6 of the said 1953 Act under sub-section (1) permitted retention of non-agricultural land in khas possession including the land held under him by any person, who is not a tenant, by leave or licence, to the extent of 15 acres. , Thus, the predecessor-in-interest could claim to have retained the land provided it was held by the District Sports Association by leave or lisence. But the fact remains that it was settled with the District Sports Association not by leave or licence. Therefore, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner cannot claim to be in khas position of the said fallow land for which the non-agricultural tenancy was created in favour of the District Sports Association. 14. In T.P. Mukherjee vs. G.C. Mondal, 17 CWN 652, it was held that one is not entitled to retain non-agricultural land in khas possession which expression qualify the word "retain". In Jagannath vs. Gati Unai, 85 CWN 817, it was held that unless the non-agricultural ten any retains in khas possession on the date of vesting he cannot retain the same. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case no right could be claimed in respect of the said property after the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and particularly after the amendments were brought about in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1954. 15. By reason of the substitution of the definition 'land' through WBLR (Amendment) Act of 1981 with effect from 7th of August, 1969 the 'land' means "land of every description and includes tank, fishery, home-stead or land used for the purpose of live-stock breeding, poultry farming, diary or land comprised in tea garden, mill, factory, workshop, orchard, 'hut', 'bazar', ferries, tolls or land having any other 'sairati' interest and any other land together with all interests, and benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently to anything attached to earth." Thus, lands of all descriptions were included within the scope of the W.B. Land Reforms Act. West Bengal Land Reforms Act in section 14L provides that no raiyat can hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 14M prescribes the ceiling area, the excess whereof vests in the State. West Bengal Land Reforms Act in section 14L provides that no raiyat can hold land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 14M prescribes the ceiling area, the excess whereof vests in the State. Even if the petitioners could have any right in respect of the said land it could not have survived after 7th August, 1969 by reason of the amendments as noted above which was inserted through West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1965 introducing Chapter IIA and West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 introducing Chapter IIB. 16. Thus, even if there is any condition, the same became ineffective as soon the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances under the WBEA Act and the District Sports Association held the same as raiyat under the State. 17. The petitioner has not been able to show any Record of Right in respect of the said land prepared either under the W.B. Estates Acquisition Act or under the W.B. Land Reforms Act. Thus, he has not been able to show that he has any subsisting right in respect of the said property to insist upon the compliance of the conditions contained in the deed of settlement. However, it has also not been contended that the land is retained land of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner who was admittedly intermediary and must have possessed land excess than the ceiling area prescribed under the 1953 Act and then under the WBLR Act as amended. Be that as it may, until and unless it is shown that the petitioner has an interest and right in respect of the said land, no relief can be had in this writ jurisdiction. 18. This petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly dismissed. This will be no order as to costs. 19. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from establishing his legal right, if he has any, before the appropriate forum, if he is so advised. 20. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied, be supplied within 7 days. Writ petition dismissed.