HARISH TANDON, J.

Affidavit of service filed be kept with the record. In spite of service none appears on behalf of opposite parties.

This revisional application is directed against an order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alipur in Misc. Appeal No. 291 of 2004.

The petitioners filed Title Suit being no. 44 of 2004 against the opposite parties praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from dispossessing and interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit premises.

Petitioners have contended in the plaint that one Bistu Charan Kayal was permitted to cultivate 91 decimals of land as Bargadars. The said Bistu Charan Kayal during his lift time relinquished his Barga right in respect of demarcated 82 decimals out of 91 decimals of land. It is further contended that the petitioners are cultivating the said land after accepting such surrender. It is alleged in the plaint that the opposite parties were creating obstructions to the petitioner in harvesting the paddy and the police authorities, even on several complaints, failed to take any steps in the matter. It is further contended that there is an eminent threat of dispossession of the petitioner at the hands of the opposite parties.

The petitioner thereafter filed an application for temporary injunction in aid of the relief as claimed in the said suit and prayed for an ad interim order of injunction. By an order dated March 25, 2004 the trial court refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction and issued a notice to show cause.

Ultimately the said application for injunction was heard out on affidavits filed by the respective parties and the said application for injunction was dismissed on the ground that a cloud has been casted over the title of the petitioner in respect of the property in question and in view of an embargo created under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 Civil Court has no jurisdiction and consequently dismissed the said application for injunction on contest.

The petitioner assailed the said order by preferring Misc. Appeal no. 291 of 2004 in the court of Additional District Judge, Alipur. The appellate court dismissed the said appeal on contest affirming the view of the trial court that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide whether Bistu Charan Kayal has relinquished his Barga right in respect of the said 82 decimal of land.

Sardar Amjad Ali, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that both the court below erred in proceeding that the suit is barred under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955. He further contends that section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 is not applicable which has been made applicable by both the court below, as it relates to a dispute between the Bargadar and a person whose land he cultivates in respect of the matters relating to division or delivery of produce, recovery of produce and termination of cultivation by the Bargadar, Sardar Amjad Ali, learned Advocate strenuously contended that in the case in hand there is no question of termination of cultivation but is a surrender and/or abandonment of cultivation by the recorded Bargadar.

Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is true that this is not a case of termination of cultivation by the Bargadar but a case of a surrender or abandonment of cultivation by Bargadar upon execution of a Nadabipatra. Even I consider the case from such angle then also the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Section 20B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 postulates that in case Bargadar surrenders his right to cultivate or voluntarily abandons the cultivation, the owner or the Bargadar or any other person may give information in writing to a prescribed authority who upon receipt of such information shall issue a notice in prescribed form upon both the Bargadar and t