D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant had purchased the land between 7th April, 1989 and 11th August, 1989 by diverse deed of sale from different owners, whose names were recorded either in the C. S. and R. S. records-of right. On the face of threat on the land being vested, a Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 was initiated on 27th september, 1989 by the appellant before the learned Munsif (2nd Court), Durgapur, burdwan and obtained a temporary injunction on 23rd March, 1990. The suit was decreed against the State exparte on 21st July, 1990. Despite communication of the decree, the records-of-right having not been corrected, on 16th May, 1991, a writ petition being C. O. 6640 (W) of 1991 was moved. This was disposed of on the said date by the Hon'ble Altamas Kabir, J. by directing the B. L. and L. R. O. to correct the records-of-right within three months. On account of default, Contempt rule No. 51 of 1992 was issued on 24th January, 1992. In the Title Execution case No. 3 of 1991 seeking to execute the decree dated 21st July, 1990, the State government in the meantime deposited the cost. On 13th November, 1992, the concerned officer undertook before this Court in the contempt proceedings that they would be correcting the records-of-right. The records-of-right were duly corrected and then produced on 20th November, 1992 before this Court. The appellant's name was recorded in the records-of-right as 'raiyat'. ( 2 ) AN application under section 144 (2) of Cr. PC was moved. On the strength of the order passed on 29th January, 1993 in the said proceeding, a writ petition being C. O. 1530 (W) of 1993 was moved in which this Court directed on the said date the police authority to carry out the order of the learned Executive magistrate. At this juncture a proceeding under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 was initiated and a notice under section 4 was issued. This was challenged in a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 12th March, 1993 in which interim orders were granted and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file opposition in the proceedings. However, on 12th March, 1993, the Revenue Officer passed an ex parte order against the appellant. This was challenged in a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 12th March, 1993 in which interim orders were granted and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file opposition in the proceedings. However, on 12th March, 1993, the Revenue Officer passed an ex parte order against the appellant. This order was challenged in a writ petition being C. O. 11527 (W) of 1993. ( 3 ) THERE are allegations that the learned Advocate for the appellant was beaten up in the process of hearing before the Block Land and Land Reforms officer. The said learned Advocate filed a report before this Court. Further interim order was issued on 15th September, 1993, directing the respondents not to change the nature and character of the property. An order was passed for submitting report by the police authority. The report of the police officer was submitted on 14th January, 1994. In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 19th July 1994, the respondent No. 9 stated his age as 28 years, thus he would be 9 years old in 1975. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition being C. O. No. 11527 (W) of 1993 was disposed of on 1st august, 1994 directing the requiring authority to pass fresh order after holding proper enquiry. The present appeal has since been filed by the appellant against the said order. In the meantime, a Special Officer was appointed. The Special officer submitted his report on 8th February, 1996. ( 5 ) IN this background, we are now supposed to consider the submission made by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the notice under section 4 of the said Act is wholly incompetent and without jurisdiction and mala fide. It has been pointed out from running page 183 of the Paper book, paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State that the alleged persons in whose favour of the land was acquired, do not have any house. But nowhere it is pointed out that these persons were occupiers of the land since 1975. Mr. Bhattacharya, however, had drawn our attention to certain documents, which are information slips issued by the authorities under the Land Reforms Department wherefrom it appears that the majority of these persons are occupying some other lands. But nowhere it is pointed out that these persons were occupiers of the land since 1975. Mr. Bhattacharya, however, had drawn our attention to certain documents, which are information slips issued by the authorities under the Land Reforms Department wherefrom it appears that the majority of these persons are occupying some other lands. However, we need not go into this question, we may simply examine whether there is sufficient material to justify the issue of the notice under section 4 of the said Act. ( 6 ) IN order to attract the provisions of the 1975 Act, the occupier must be in possession of the land on 26th June, 1975. The "occupier", defined under section 2 (f) of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, means the possession of a land of another either as a lessee, licensee or a transferor who holds no other land in any way whatsoever. Even if we ignore the information slips even then there must be certain material to show that these persons were in occupation of the land in 1975. In one case, namely, respondent No. 9 himself stated that he was aged about 28 years on 19th July, 1994. On calculation, it appears that he would be 9 years old in 1975. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, in view of the order passed by this Court, the police report is on record; at the same time, a report of the Special Officer is also on record. The police report at page 257 of the Paper Book is quoted below :"during physical visit I found that some open challas made of bamboo and straw have been constructed on the disputed plots for the purpose of opening a market over there as per advise of local Panchayat Body. However, injunction under section 144 Cr. PC issued by learned Executive Magistrate dg. , was promptly acted and notices were served upon Prodhan, Gopalpur g. P. and Ors. but that effort was not fruitful. At the present the matter is prestige issue of Krishak Samity CPI-M. Meanwhile the B. L. and L. R. O. , Kanksa declared the plot in question referred above to be homestead land for what reason best known to him. but that effort was not fruitful. At the present the matter is prestige issue of Krishak Samity CPI-M. Meanwhile the B. L. and L. R. O. , Kanksa declared the plot in question referred above to be homestead land for what reason best known to him. Now the intervention of S. D. O. , Durgapur is urgently required over the issue to comply the order of Hon'ble High Court and to come to a clear cut decision". ( 8 ) THE report of the Special Officer is at page 271 of the paper book runs thus :"at the time of my visit I have also seen that the entire disputed plots of lands are big plots and in the said plots there are no pucca wall. I found marked of that the land in question the demarcated by trench on all sides. I also found that said plots are totally vacant land excepting 5 (five) small challas with straw roof supported by bamboos pole within a small portion of the property on the southern side. I found no persons are residing in the said challas and seems to be inhabitable. Besides the aforesaid 5 (five)temporary challas, there found no other challas or shed, privy, tubewell, well or pond and electricity connection in the disputed plots. At the time of visit I found the disputed plots are big plots of land situated on the main village road excepting the aforesaid 5 (five) temporary small challas the other major portions are lying totally vacant land and in the said vacant land I found some bushes and some jungle trees. After completion of my visit I again on being escorted by the said Officer-in-charge, Kanksa Police Station left the disputed plot". ( 9 ) THESE reports make it clear that the land is a vacant land on which there are certain challas but no one resides on the land. Therefore, the same cannot come within the purview of section 4 of the 1975 Act. The entire process appears to be wholly mala fide. The facts revealed clearly indicate that after having failed to occupy the land in law, devices were being found out to grab the said land and the Government machinery has been set up and wrongly utilized to fulfil certain oblique purpose of someone else which is a deplorable condition and speak ill of the administration. The facts revealed clearly indicate that after having failed to occupy the land in law, devices were being found out to grab the said land and the Government machinery has been set up and wrongly utilized to fulfil certain oblique purpose of someone else which is a deplorable condition and speak ill of the administration. The Government Officers are not supposed to be partisan but they are supposed to assist the administration according to law. They are not supposed to follow the dictates of anyone else. This is an extreme example of misuse and abuse of Governmental power and the administrative machinery. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, the initiation of the proceedings under section 4, as discussed above, having been found to be mala fide, without jurisdiction and incompetent since it did not satisfy the ingredients on which the same could be resorted to, is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant/petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 205 and 208, R. S. Khatian Nos. 1404, 1431, 1451, 1396, 1424, 1417 now L. R. Khatian Nos. 301, 759, 481, 468, 256, 210 measuring about 1. 40 acres out of 1. 57 acres in Mouza Bamunara, J. L. No. 58, Revenue Survey No. 2270, Police station Kanksa, District Burdwan. The Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer of the area, the Officer-in-Charge, Kanksa police Station, District Magistrate, Burdwan, and S. D. O. , the B. L. and L. R. O. of the area shall ensure the peaceful and uniterrupted possession of the petitioners and if there are any person in occupation of the said land, they shall be removed including the respondents and all these officers shall be responsible for any disturbance in or interference with the peaceful possession and occupation of the land of the appellant by any person etc. The law and order in the area shall be maintained for all time to come. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. The order of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above. ( 12 ) LET a xerox plain copy of the operative part of the order (paras 9 to 14)be served by the learned Registrar General upon the Chief Secretary, government of West Bengal for his information and necessary steps and onward transmission to the respective officers for compliance. ( 12 ) LET a xerox plain copy of the operative part of the order (paras 9 to 14)be served by the learned Registrar General upon the Chief Secretary, government of West Bengal for his information and necessary steps and onward transmission to the respective officers for compliance. There will, however, be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) URGENT xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. Appeal disposed of.