JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was the Mutwalli of Hakimannessa Wakf Estate situated at Chalsapara, District Malda, has obtained this Rule under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Revenue Officer Makdampur Settlement Camp No.1, English Bazar, made in exercise of his powers under section 6(1) (i) read with section 45A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and Rule 15 D of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules. The Revenue Officer, by his said order, has purported to revise an earlier order under section 6(1) (i) read with section 44(2a) of the Act in respect of the selfsame wakf estate. 2. In my view, the learned Revenue Officer in the instant case has clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction. It is settled law now that Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not contemplate successive enquiries in respect of the same subject matter. In this connection see the case of (1) Biswanath Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, reported in 78 CWN 277. In the instant case the Revenue Officer concerned has clearly assumed a jurisdiction not vested in him by law for revising a previous order of another Revenue Officer passed in Case No. 7 of 1964 under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. In the said previous case the Revenue Officer had ordered that the wakf estate in question be adjudged as an institution established exclusively for religious and charitable purpose within the meaning of section 6 (1) (i) and that the same would be subject to the benefits of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act. He had accordingly ordered that necessary entries be made in the relevant khatians relating to properties of the wakf estate. 3. The Revenue Officer in the order impugned in the Rule was fully aware of the said previous enquiry. But it was not open to him to brush aside the legal consequences of the order passed in the said Case No.7 of 1964 by observing that a fresh enquiry was required under the amended section and the rule. Another reason given in the matter was that the previous enquiries were done "without consideration of the implication of the amendment." The Revenue Officer, however, did not indicate which particular amendment of the law authorised him to hold a second enquiry. 4. Another reason given in the matter was that the previous enquiries were done "without consideration of the implication of the amendment." The Revenue Officer, however, did not indicate which particular amendment of the law authorised him to hold a second enquiry. 4. The points of law raised in the present case were previously considered by me in my judgment dated July 11, 1975 in (2) CR 1549 of 1970 (Kamaleswar Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.). In the said case I held that a similar second enquiry to be without jurisdiction. In my view, the said reasonings equally apply to the instant case also. 5. As already observed, a second enquiry under section 44 (2a) in not permissible in law. The opposite parties cannot rely upon provisions of section 45 A to justify the second enquiry impugned in this Rule. The said section empowers the authorities to effect corrections consequential upon the passing of an order under section 5(A) or on amendment of the Act or the Rules. In the instant case admittedly there had been no enquiry under Section 5(A). There had been also no amendment of the law affecting the right of a religious and charitable institution, to retain, under section 6(1) (i) of the Act, lands dedicated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes Section 17 (1) proviso at the relevant time also remained unaltered. Amendments made in section 16(1b) (vi) which deal with computation of gross and net incomes for the purpose of preparation of the assessment rolls have no relevance in the instant case. Therefore, the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under section 45A were not present in the instant case. 6. I may further observe that the order impugned in the Rule cannot be treated as an order for review of the previous orders passed in Case No.7 of 1964. It is true that the State Government by Notification under section 57 A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act had invested the authorities, mentioned in Section 53 of the Act, with all the powers of Civil Court (vide Notification No. 340L Reg. dated June 9, 1958). But then, in the instant case the Revenue Officer did not act in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. dated June 9, 1958). But then, in the instant case the Revenue Officer did not act in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no application for review before the Revenue Officer and the Revenue Officer did not himself also state that he was reviewing the earlier order. In the present circumstances, a suo moto initiation of review proceeding was also not contemplated. 7. In the above view, I make this Rule absolute and quash the orders dated 4th February, 1970 and 25th February, 1970 passed by the Revenue Officer, Sadar Settlement Camp No.1, Mukdampur, Malda in Case No. 7/1 of 1970 and all consequential orders passed on the basis of the same. This order is, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in any other proceeding according to law. There will be no order as to costs.