M. M. DUTT, J. ( 1 ) IN this Rule the petitioners have challenged the order dated May 19, 1969 passed by the Revenue Officer under Section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 declaring the transfer made by Mrityunjoy Sasmal in favour of his three daughter and one sister as not bona fide. ( 2 ) THE said Mrityunjoy Sasmal, by a registered deed of Gift dated January 13, 1954, transferred certain quantities of land including Plots Nos. 1904, 1904/3009 and 1904. 3010 of Khatian No. 262 measuring in all 7. 94 acres. Achintya Sasmal, the son of Mrityunjoy Sasmal purchased 3. 75 acres of lands from the transferee Chanchalabala Giri and one Kamal Krishna Jana purchased the other two plots from Kananbala Giri, another transferee of Mrityunjoy Sasmal. The petitioners purchased the whole of 7. 49 acres of the said 3 plots from Achinta Sasmal and Kamal Krishna Jana by 5 registered deeds of sale, one executed on March 13, 1962 and the other four on June 18, 1968. The vendors of the petitioners, namely, the said Achinta Kumar Sasmal and Kamal Krishna Jana were not the original transferees of Mrityunjoy Sasmal. But they are the transferees of the transferees of Mrityunjoy. The petitioners are, therefore, the third grade of transferees. The complaint of the petitioners, is that the proceeding under Section 5a started against the said Mrityunjoy Sasmal and his transferees, namely, his daughters and sister was disposed of by the Revenue Officer without adding the petitioners as parties to the said proceeding and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. It has been contended by Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the Revenue Officer in disposing the proceeding under Section 5a overlooked the provisions of the proviso (i) to sub-section (5) of Section 5a which provides that no order shall be passed in an enquiry held under Section 5a except after giving the transferor and the transferee an opportunity of being heard. Clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 5a provides that 'transferor' and 'transferee' include the successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee. It is contended that the petitioners are the successors-in-interest of the original transferees, namely, the said Chanchalabala Giri and Kananbala Giri. Clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 5a provides that 'transferor' and 'transferee' include the successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee. It is contended that the petitioners are the successors-in-interest of the original transferees, namely, the said Chanchalabala Giri and Kananbala Giri. ( 3 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this Rule is whether the expression in clause (iv) of sub-section (7), "successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee" includes only the vendors of the petitioners, namely, Achinta Kumar Sasmal, Kamal Krishna Jana or the same includes also the petitioners, as the successors-in-interest of the original transferees of the intermediary. Clause (iv) of sub-section (7) does not give any indication in that regard but it only provides that the transferor and transferee will includes the successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee. In my opinion, the petitioners are also included within the term, "successors-in-interest of a transferee", for the reasons stated hereinafter. ( 4 ) THE principal object to the provision for giving the successors-in-interest of a transferee an opportunity of being heard is that the person who will be actually prejudiced cannot be deprived of the land without giving him an opportunity of being heard. This provision is in accordance with the rules of natural justice. If the subsequent transferees are not given the opportunity of being heard, in that case, they will be very much prejudiced and will be deprived of the land in case the transfer is found to be not bonafide. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5a if the transfer is found to be not bonafide, the same will stand cancelled as from the date on which it was made or purported to have been made. It is, however, provided in the proviso to sub-section (2) that subject to such cancellation, nothing in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to affect any rights which the transferor or the transferee may otherwise have against each other. As soon as the transferee parts with his interest in favour of another person, he gets all the rights of the transferee as against the original vendor. Similarly, when that person makes another transfer in favour of another person, that other person also acquires all the rights of the original transferee against the original vendor. As soon as the transferee parts with his interest in favour of another person, he gets all the rights of the transferee as against the original vendor. Similarly, when that person makes another transfer in favour of another person, that other person also acquires all the rights of the original transferee against the original vendor. If the provisions of clause (iv) of sub-section (7) is construed as meaning that it includes only the first transferee and his immediate successors-in-interest, in that case, the proviso to sub-section (2) which saves the rights of such transferee against the vendor, will become nugatory in case of successive transfers. ( 5 ) UNDER Section 5a (3) (ii) it has been provided that after a transfer is found to be bonafide and that if any such land or any part thereof is retained by the transferee, such land or such part thereof may be taken into account in calculating the land which may be retained by the transferor. The word, 'transferee' in clause (ii) of sub-section (3), in my opinion, also includes the lat transferee in case of successive transfers. It will not be in accordance with the object of the provisions of Section 5a to limit the expression, "successors-in-interest of a transferee" to only the person who is the immediate successors-in-interest of the original transferee. On a proper construction of clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 5a I am of the view that the petitioners are also the successors-in-interest of the transferees of the intermediary, Mrityunjoy Sasmal. The Revenue Officer should have, therefore, given the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before he disposed of the proceedings under Section 5a. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I direct that a writ in the nature of Certiorari issue quashing the impugned order dated May 19, 1969 only in so far as it relates to the said 3 plots measuring in all 7. 49 acres and I further direct that a writ in nature of Mandamus issue commanding the Revenue Officer to dispose of the proceeding with regard to the said 3 plots within three months of the date of communication of this order to him after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. ( 7 ) THIS Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.