JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows ; The petitioners are the subsequent transferees in respect of some lands which are the subject matter of several proceedings under section 5-A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. They are the transferees from one Musst. Kamrun Nahar and Mustt. Sammnnahar. According to them, the lands transferred in their favour are covered by the proceedings Nos. 846, 847, 737, 733, 789, 783, 763, 772 and 856 of 1968. An these proceedings were started under section 5A by the Revenue Officer (Compensation) Camp I, Bongaon not against the petitioners but their transferors. These proceedings were disposed of analogously along with some others and the order is recorded in case No. 133 of 1968. It appears from the order sheet that different proceedings under section 5A were initiated against the common transferor, Abdur Raham to Mondal and the different transferees from Rahaman Mondal who are alleged to be the notice and the grand daughters of the transferor including therein the two persons who have retransferred the plots now claimed by the petitioners in their favour. These proceedings were not contested either by the transferor or the transferees and according to the petitioners, it could not be so done a they had left for Pakistan and no notice could be served on them. But even then the present petitioners appeared and were allowed to file the written statement. Claim raised in the written statement was not disposed of in the final order disposing of these proceedings though it has been recorded that these subsequent transferees from the original transferees are in possession on mutation of their names, But nonethless the transfers effected in favour of the petitioner's transferors, was declared not bonafide in the proceeding under section 5A. The result whereof is that the petitioners would lose these lands. Hence, they however challenged before this Court, the validity of this order and in my opinion the order should be struck down on a simple point, namely, nowhere has the Revenue officer found out the date of the alleged transfer by Rahaman Mondal in favour of his transferees. The result whereof is that the petitioners would lose these lands. Hence, they however challenged before this Court, the validity of this order and in my opinion the order should be struck down on a simple point, namely, nowhere has the Revenue officer found out the date of the alleged transfer by Rahaman Mondal in favour of his transferees. All throughout the proceeding this aspect is quite silent and in my opinion, unless there is a finding by the Revenue Officer that the transfer sought to be impugned in the proceeding under section 5A is a transfer within the prohibited period, the Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the transfer as not bonafide. 2. For this reason, this application succeeds and the impugned order so far as it relates to the above 5A cases are concerned is set aside, The Rule is made absolute. 3. Let a writ of Certiorari issue incorporating the above direction. It be further recorded that the respondents have not contested in this Rule. 4. For reasons given in this Rule the other Rules, namely CR 2444-47 (w) of 1969 succeed and the impugned orders are set aside. Let similar Writ of Certiorari issue incorporating the above direction.