An unregistered deed of settlement cannot be treated as a valid transfer of immovable property, and kharija receipts, obtained on the basis of an unregistered deed, cannot be treated as a consent by the landlord to a subdivision of the tenancy.

1. IN this Rule, whichwas obtained with the corresponding interim order for maintenance of status quo as on that date, was obtained on 6th January 1976, against orders of vesting in respect of lands, the particulars whereof are mentioned hereinafter.

2. THE petitioner is stated to be a cultivator and it is his case that at all material times, he maintained and still he maintains himself and his family consisting of two wives and six daughters, out of the usufructs from the lands as involved in this case.

It has also been stated that lands in question, were and are in khas possession of the petitioner and they are below the ceiling limit, as prescribed under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

3. THE petitioner has stated that as far back as on 15th Baisakh 1354 B. S., corresponding to April 1947, a Deed of settlement (Ekrarnama), was executed dividing a part of the lands belonging to the petitioner among his four sons who are Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. The copy of the said Ekrarnama has been annexed as in Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner has stated that on the basis of the said document in Annexure-A, his sons, who as mentioned hereinbefore, are Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, got their names mutated in the sherista of the then landlord viz Sahapur Estate and other on "payment of selami and obtained kharija receipts. It has been stated that thereafter, those respondent Nos. 6-9, entered into possession of the lands in question and as such, since 1947, they have been possessing those lands through cultivation and enjoyment on their own rights. It is also the case of the petitioner that those sons, at all material times were and still are separate in mess and boarding from the petitioner and he has no connection either "with them or their holding. Apart from the lands as involved in the concerned Ekrarnama, the petitioner has stated that he had khas jands measuring 23. 06, the particulars whereof are in Annexure-B to the petitlion. The lands which were involved in the concerned Ekrarnama, were 2. 63 and 2. 16 acres respectively and the necessary particulars of them are available in the Schedule 2 of the said Ekrarnama as in Annexure-A.

4. THE petitioner has stated that lands in his khas possession, being below the ceiling there was no question of westing of any part or portion thereof. So far as the lands involved in the Ekrarnama, the petitioner has stated that ms name was initially recorded as the owner but thereafter, on objection being taken by respondent Nos. 6-9, under section 44 (2a) of the said Act, proceeding was started and order was passed on 13th July 1960, by the Revenue officer concerned who duly corrected the Record of Rights in the Revisional Settlement Records, by entering the name of those Respondent Nos. 6-9 in column 13 with the remark "without Registered document". It is the case of the petitioner that after coming into operation and force of the said act the Respondent Nos. 6-9 became raiyati-sthitiban tenants in possession under the State of West Bengal, in respect of the lands falling in their shares and the State of West Bengal, in their turn, have accepted and are accepting rents from those Respondents.

It appears that a proceeding, being case No. 263 of 1970, under section 6 (a)read with section 47 of the said Act, was started against the petitioner and by an order dated 25th September 1970, the assistant Settlement Officer, Respondent no. 3, declared the lands covered by the ekrarnama as vested to the State. The petitioner has stated that Respondent Nos. 6-9 being aggrived and seriously prejudiced and effected by such order, moved separate applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court and obtained Civil Rule Nos. 129 (W) to 132 (W)of 1971, on the grounds amongst others that notices were not served on them, of the proceeding under section 6 (a)and that on the basis of the concerned Ekrarnama and Kharija receipt