JUDGMENT Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. Assailing the order dated 1st March, 2011 passed in O.A. No. 3030 of 2006 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Third Bench, this writ application has been filed. 3. The impugned order reads such:- “01.03.11. Mr. Biswa Priya Ray, Ld. Advocate is appearing for the applicant. Ld. Government Representative is present. Ld. Government Representative files report annexing the copy of the order passed by the Revenue Officer, Pandua, District-Hooghly, in Misc. Case No. 36/Pandua/1999. The report and the copy of the proceeding be kept with the record. Copy served upon Mr. Biswa Priya Ray, Ld. Advocate for the applicant. We have heard both sides. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta concerned authority initiated proceeding being Misc. Case No. 36/Pandua/1999. The copy of the information regarding recording the suit land in favour of the applicant has also been filed by the concerned authority with his report. As the matter has already been disposed of, so no further direction is required from this end in O.A. No. 3030 of 2006. In these terms the O.A. No. 3030 of 2006 is disposed of….” 4. The case has a chequered history. Initially, the petitioner moved the writ application being W.P. No. 12974 (W) of 1998 praying for disposal of his representation dated 30th September, 1997 as filed before the concerned Revenue Officer raising the dispute about barga cultivation. This writ application has been disposed of by Amitava Lala, J. (as His Lordship then was) directing the concerned Revenue Officer to dispose of the said application. A proceeding was initiated in terms of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta by the concerned Revenue Officer being Misc. Case No. 36/Pandua of 1999 under the cause-title Abdul Odud, the present petitioner –vs- Deba Hansda & Ors. In the said proceeding, the present petitioner admitted Barga right of Deba Hansda. The order of the Revenue Officer dated 1st June, 1999 reads such:- “Both the parties appeared. Haziras enclosed. Heard both the parties. The 1st party agreed that the disputed plot has been cultivating by the recorded Bargadar named by Deba Hansda. In the said proceeding, the present petitioner admitted Barga right of Deba Hansda. The order of the Revenue Officer dated 1st June, 1999 reads such:- “Both the parties appeared. Haziras enclosed. Heard both the parties. The 1st party agreed that the disputed plot has been cultivating by the recorded Bargadar named by Deba Hansda. Adhering strictly to the principles of justice and norms generally adopted for rewarding the name of a bargadar I have no ambiguity to say that the name of the bargadar has been recorded in due process of law. In consideration of the above there is no such ground to delete the name of the bargadar or to cancel the barga certificate which has been issued by RO. Pandua. Hence the case is disposed of.” 5. It is the case of the petitioner before us that said Deba Hansda breathed last in the year 2000. The legal heir of Deba Hansda, Lakshmiram Hansda, did not approach the concerned Revenue Officer for recording his name as Bargadar claiming legal heirship within 30 days from the date of death of his father, the recorded Bargadar. But petitioner was surprised from the recording of the name of Lakshmi Hansda at the time of L.R. Settlement operation as proceeded under Section 51A of West Bengal Land Reforms Act. But subsequently he filed an application for correction of L.R. record of rights, finally published, under L.R. Settlement, by deleting the name of Lakshmiram Hansda whose name was recorded as Bargadar. The application as filed annexed at page 39 of the writ application. In the application, it is only mentioned that Lakshmiram Hansda has recorded his name as Bargadar illegally. Except that submission there is no whisper in the application that father of Lakshmiram Hansda was the recoded Bargadar who breathed last while cultivating land as Bargadar. Besides such, in terms of Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 no objection filed against the draft publication of record of rights and there was no objection against the final publication of record of rights. Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 reads such:- “51A. Besides such, in terms of Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 no objection filed against the draft publication of record of rights and there was no objection against the final publication of record of rights. Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 reads such:- “51A. Draft and final publication of the record-of-rights.- (1) When a record-of-rights has been revised or prepared, the Revenue Officer shall publish a draft of the record so revised or prepared in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made during such period to any entry therein or to any omission of being herd and after recording reasons therefrom. (2) When all such objections have been considered and disposed of according to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, the Revenue Officer shall finally prepare the record and cause such record to be finally published in the prescribed manner and make a certificate stating the fact of such final publication and the date thereof and shall date and subscribe the same under his name and official designation. (3) Separate publication of different parts of draft or final records may be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for different local areas. (4) An officer specially empowered by the State Government may, on application within one year, or on his own motion within twenty-five years, from the date of publication of the record-of-rights under sub-section (2), revise an entry in the record finally published in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) after the persons interested are given an opportunity (5) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in revision under sub-section (4) may, within such period, and on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed, appeal in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority of the district in which the land referred to in the record-of-rights is situated : Provided that where the appeal is preferred to a Collector, he may transfer the appeal to such officer subordinate to him as may be prescribed: Provided further that the officer to whom the appeal is transferred is superior in rank or position to the officer or authority making the order appealed against. (6) The certificate of final publication referred to in sub-section (2), or in the absence of such certificate, a certificate signed by the Collector of any district in which the area to which the record-of-rights relates is wholly or partly situate, stating that a record-of-rights has been finally published on a specified date, shall be conclusive proof of such publication and of the date thereof. (7) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare with regard to any area specified in the notification that the record-of-rights for every village included in such area has been finally published and such notification shall be conclusive proof of such publication. (8) In any suit or other proceeding in which a record-of-rights revised or prepared and finally published under this Chapter, or a duly certified copy of the record or an extract therefrom, is produced, such record-of-rights shall be presumed to have been finally published unless such publication is expressly denied. (9) Every entry in the record-or-rights finally published under sub-section (2) including an entry revised under sub-section (4) or corrected under section 51B or section 51BB shall, subject to any modification by an order on appeal under sub-section (5), be presumed to be correct.” 6. Now the issue to be considered as to whether the writ petitioner got any right to agitate his grievance to the Revenue Officer in the manner by filing an application on 6th July, 2006. 7. On a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 51A, it appears that after publication of draft record of rights at the time of L.R. Settlement operation by processing through the procedures of revision of record of rights in terms of Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, namely, following procedures of Khanapuri, Bhujarat etc., there was scope to file objection to the draft record of rights. Admittedly in the draft record of rights at the time of “operation barga” process when name of Lakshmiram Hansda recorded as Bargadar, no objection filed by the present petitioner and thus record of rights on application of Section 51A, became final and it to be presumed as correct under sub-section 9 of said Section 51A. Section 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 deals with right of cultivation of legal heir of deceased recorded Bargadar. Section 15A of the said Act reads such:- “15A. Section 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 deals with right of cultivation of legal heir of deceased recorded Bargadar. Section 15A of the said Act reads such:- “15A. Constitution of right of cultivation on bargadar’s death.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any contract to the contrary, where a bargadar, cultivating any land, dies at a time when cultivation of such land by the bargadar was continuing, the cultivation of such land may be continued by the lawful heir of the bargadar or where there are more than one lawful heir, by such lawful heir of the bargadar as all the lawful heirs of the bargadar may determine within the prescribed period : Provided that where the lawful heirs of the bargadar omit or fail to make a determination as required by this sub-section, the officer or authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 18 may nominate one of the lawful heirs of the bargadar, who is in a position to cultivate the land personally, to continue the cultivation thereof. (2) The lawful heir of the bargadar who is determined or nominated for the cultivation of the land shall cultivate the land subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (3) Where- (a) no lawful heir of the bargadar is in a position to cultivate the land personally, or (b) the lawful heir of the bargadar fail to determine, within the prescribed period, the heir by whom the cultivation of the land will be continued and the officer or authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 18 also omits or fails to nominate, within the prescribed period, any lawful heir of the deceased bargadar for the continuation of the cultivation of the land, or (c) the person determined or nominated under sub-section (1) omits or fails to take any steps, within the prescribed period, for the continuation of the cultivation of the land, cultivation of the land may be continued by such person, whether an heir of the deceased bargadar or not, as may be nominated by the person whose land was cultivated by the deceased bargadar.” 8. It is an admitted position from the records and the submission of the writ petitioner as well as from the order of the Revenue Officer passed in said miscellaneous case as initiated in terms of the order of Amitava Lala, J. (as His Lordship then was) passed in the writ application that Deba Hansda was the father of Lakshmiram Hansda, who was a recorded Bargadar. The petitioner has also admitted the said position. Section 15A of the said Act provides that on death of a recorded Bargadar his legal heir will cultivate the land automatically and there is no question of recording of name of legal heir by filing any application to the Revenue Officer after death of predecessor-in-interest. Only in case of nomination or dispute in between the legal heirs, on the point who would cultivate the land after death of recorded Bargadar, provision has been made to approach the Revenue Officer to determine the said issue. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was a dispute in between the legal heirs of deceased Deba Hansda relating to exercise of barga right to cultivate the land. As happened in the Succession Law, after death of a person, legal heir becomes automatic owner of the property, which is termed as transmission process and which does not require any instrument, similarly by application of Section 15A of the said Act the right to cultivate land by legal heir of the deceased Bargadar continues without making any further instrument or order by the Revenue Officer. It appears from the petition filed by writ petitioner on 6th July, 2006 before Revenue Officer that the writ petitioner concealed material fact that Lakshmiram Hansda is the only legal heir of deceased recorded Bargadar, Deba Hansda. In that application it was further concealed about the fact that under Section 51A of the said Act at the time of L.R. Settlement operation the draft record of rights duly prepared recording name of Lakshmiram Hansda as Bargadar and no objection filed by the petitioner and thereby allowed the draft record of rights to be finally published record. 9. In view of such state of affairs, the petitioner had no scope to approach the Revenue Officer by filing application in the said manner resorting Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 9. In view of such state of affairs, the petitioner had no scope to approach the Revenue Officer by filing application in the said manner resorting Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Section 50 of the said Act could be applied for correction of record of rights when there will be alteration or variation of the mode of cultivation by the Bargadar. It appears that the name of Lakshmiram Hansda was recorded at the time of revision of record of rights in terms of Section 51 read with Section 51A of the said Act and the said recording reached its finality. Once recording reached its finality, any variation or modification thereafter could be the subject matter of consideration under Section 50 of the said Act, as suspended condition of Section 50 would revive in action after finality of final publication of record of rights in terms of Section 51A of the said Act for recording any change subsequent to such final publication in the record of rights. The revival of Section 50 is by application of Section 50A of the said Act. Section 50A reads such:- “50A. Section 50 not apply to certain cases.- Section 50 shall not apply to any district or part of such district where Chapter VIIA has come into force for the purpose of revision or preparation of records-of-rights; but section 50 shall apply to any land I any such district or part of such district after final publication of any such record-of-rights under section 51A; Provided that notwithstanding any order made under sub-section (1) of section 51 in respect of a district or part of a district, the State Government may make an order directing the prescribed authority appointed under section 50 to incorporate such changes as may be specified in the said order in the record-of-rights in respect of such district or part of such district under section 50, if the State Government is satisfied hat incorporation of such changes is necessary to mitigate the hardship of a raiyat.” 10. In view of above discussions and the legal position, the writ petitioner had no right to file any application under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 praying correction of record of rights finally published by deleting name of Lakshmiram Hansda, recorded Bargadar. In view of above discussions and the legal position, the writ petitioner had no right to file any application under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 praying correction of record of rights finally published by deleting name of Lakshmiram Hansda, recorded Bargadar. Besides such, on reading Section 15A read with Section 51A of the said Act, we are of the view that the application of the petitioner before the Revenue Officer was misconceived and not legally permissible. As such, refusal of Revenue Officer to take any action was justified and there was no cause of action to move the learned Tribunal below on that issue. However, it appears that the learned Tribunal below went wrong by referring the earlier Misc. Case No. 36/Pandua/1999 and the order thereof as the said miscellaneous case was on issue of recording the name of one Deba Hansda, father of present Bargadar. Since the learned Tribunal below did not consider the issue in the proper angle, finding is not legally sustainable and the order of learned Tribunal below is set aside and quashed. But having regard to our finding and observation, we hold that the writ petitioner had no legal right to pray for correction of record of rights for deleting name of Lakshmiram Hansda whose name was recorded as Bargadar at the time of settlement operation. Lakshmiram Hansda’s name was recorded at the time of operation barga for the sole reason that he was cultivating land as legal heir of his father, Deba Hansda who was recorded Bargadar. 11. Considering that aspect, no relief could be granted in favour of the petitioner in the writ application. 12. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. 13. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously. Md. Abdul Ghani, J. : I agree.