The Explanation added to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, could not nullify the effect of the court's decision in Muktiar Hussain Jamadar's case, as an Explanation cannot interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof.

This writ application raises a short but important point of law concerning Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 and arises out of a notice dated 22nd August, 1990, issued by the Revenue Officer, Block Land and Land Reforms Office, Chanditalla Block I, Mashat, Hooghly, under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the "said Act".

2. The aforesaid notice has been challenged in the writ petition on several grounds.

3. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil, learned advocate, firstly submitted that since revisional settlement operations had not been completed when the impugned notice was issued, the same was without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 50A of the said Act.

4. Mr. Sil next submitted that the Revenue Officer, who had initiated the proceedings and had issued the impugned notice, was not specially empowered as contemplated by the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, read with Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, and on that ground also the proceedings initiated by the said Revenue Officer were liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. Sil also submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act did not entitle the Revenue Officer, specially empowered in that behalf, to adjudicate on the question as to whether a person was in fact a bargadar or not.

6. The last, but by far the most significant submission of Mr. Sil was that under Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules", which was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, the Revenue Officer was empowered, on his own motion, to incorporate in the village record-of-rights any change on account of alteration in the mode of cultivation. Mr. Sil submitted that in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 specific mention had been made with regard to alteration in the mode of cultivation by a bargadar mentioned in clause (e) of Section 50 of the said Act. Mr. Sil submitted that the impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed as the same had been initiated by the Revenue Officer not on his own motion, (emphasis supplied), but on the basis of an application made by the private respondent No.6, Shri Jiban Santra.

7. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Sil referred to and relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Muktiar Hussain Jamadar and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 1981 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 16, wherein the scope of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules was considered by this Court. Mr. Sil pointed out that in the said case this Court had held that except for starting a suo mota proceeding under Sub-rule (2) for recording the mode of cultivation in terms of clause (e) of Section 50, the Revenue Officer under Section 50 was not empowered to make any independent finding and he was required to revise the record-of-rights on the basis of orders passed by ether competent authorities. Mr. Sil pointed out that in the said case it was also held that while the Revenue Officer was empowered to start a suo mota proceeding for revising the record-of rights relating to the mode of cultivation, he was not entitled to do so on the basis of an application filed by any individual.

8. In this context Mr. Sil also referred to the "Explanation" to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the said Rules which had been incorporated by amendment after the above-mentioned decision in the case of Muktiar Hussain Jamadar was pronounced. Mr. Sil submitted that without amending the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 itself, the Rule making authority was not competent to enlarge the scope thereof simply by adding an Explanation which ran contrary to the interpretation thereof by this Court. Mr. Sil submitted that the doctrine relating to the interpretation of statutes postulates that the provisions of a section in an enactment stands on its own footing