The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. 141 dated 17.12.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai, in Title Suit No. 72 of 2007. It would be evident from the materials on record that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai, upon hearing the learned Counsel for both sides over the petitioner’s application under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was pleased to reject the same on a finding that the petitioner/defendant failed to produce any evidence in support of prima facie proof that he was ever inducted as ‘bargadar’ under Opposite Party/Plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned dated 17.12.2007, the petitioner has come up before this Court praying for setting aside the said order. Point for consideration is whether the order dated 17.12.2007, passed by the learned Court below is sustainable under the law or whether the same needs any interference by this Court.

Mr. Samiran Giri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making submission drew this Court’s attention to the contents of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 as well as some other important materials on record and strongly contended that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and improprieties inasmuch as learned Court below ignoring the mandatory provisions of law as envisaged in Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 rejected the application under Section 21(3) of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 filed by his client in the Court below and thus caused miscarriage of justice to his client. In support of his contention, he referred to the provisions laid down in Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as also some relevant portions of the petitioner’s written statement filed in the Court below and emphatically urged that the matter relating to dispute as to whether the petitioner is a ‘bargadar’ or not in respect of the suit property having been well reflected in the body of the written statement, the learned Court below ought to have referred the matter to the concerned Officer as embodied in Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,1955. Mr. Giri also argued that it is a fit case wherein the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Further, Mr. Giri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the decision reported in 2001(1) CLJ 431 (Harendra Nath Sarkar & Ors. Vs. Dibakar Mondal & Ors.) and 81 C.W.N. 922 (Panchanan Bhandari Vs. Kaliprasad Barman & Anr.) strenuously submitted that in view of the principle of the ruling referred to above as also in view of the provisions laid down in Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the petitioner’s application Under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ought to have been without hesitation referred to the concerned officer by the Court below and accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside as a result of which the application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be allowed.

On the other hand, Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party referring to some materials placed before this Court strongly argued and submitted that the learned Court below by passing the impugned order committed no mistake or illegality as because the petitioner’s father under due process of law was evicted from the suit property as bargadar under the Opposite Party and that the present petitioner has subsequently never been inducted as ‘bargadar’ in respect of the suit land. Mr. Mukherjee further urged that although the petitioner happens to be ‘bargadar’ under the Opposite Party in respect of some non-suit property, but in n