ORDER This writ petition is directed against an adjudication made under S. 44(2a) suo moto of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act being Case No. 916 and also an adjudication made in a Big Raiyat proceeding being Case No. 353 of 1979. 2. It appears that the said S. 44(2a) suo moto proceeding was initiated on 20th August, 1979 and it was directed that notice of the said proceeding should be issued upon the recorded tenants and also the original landlord and the hearing was fixed on 30th August, 1979. On 30th August, 1979, the case was adjourned for hearing on 8th September 1979. It, however, appears that on 31st August, 1979, the said Big Raiyat proceeding under S. 6(1) of the Act was started although upto that point of time there was no occasion to come to any finding in the said proceeding under S. 44(2a). It appears that thereafter both the proceeding continued simultaneously and the 44(2a) proceeding was concluded on 8th September 1979 and the Big Raiyat proceeding was concluded 11th September, 1979. It was held in the 44(2a) proceeding that the name of the recorded tenants should be deleted and the original landlord’s names should be inserted on the finding that the original landlord was in actual physical possession. For coming to the said finding, it transpires that the Revenue Officer relied on the report of the Halka Officer. But the said report was obtained ex parte and no copy was made available to the present petitioner. It is, therefore quite clear and apparent that the basic principle of natural justice was not followed and both the proceedings viz., 44(2a) proceeding and the Big, Raiyat proceeding were disposed of primarily on the basis of the report made by the Halka Officer without any notice to the petitioner and without giving the petitioner any opportunity to controvert the same. It is also very unfortunate that the said Big Raiyat proceeding was started almost simultaneously with 44(2a) proceeding. In my view, the question of Big Raiyat proceeding can only arise if the 44(2a) proceeding is finally concluded and if it is held that the original landlord should be recorded in the finally published revisional record of rights and for such recording his lands exceed the ceiling. In my view, the question of Big Raiyat proceeding can only arise if the 44(2a) proceeding is finally concluded and if it is held that the original landlord should be recorded in the finally published revisional record of rights and for such recording his lands exceed the ceiling. But before such adjudication is made in the 44(2a) proceeding there cannot be any occasion to think that the said landlord had really retained lands beyond the ceiling and, as such, the Big Raiyat proceeding should be initiated against the same. In my view, Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner is quite justified in his contention that in the instant case the said proceeding was initiated mala fide and with the sole intention to conclude the said proceeding against the petitioner and to deprive the petitioner to retain the land permissible in law. 3. Accordingly, the adjudications made in both the said proceedings are quashed. The Revenue Officer will, however, have the liberty to start a fresh proceedings under S. 44(2a) in accordance with law if, on a proper consideration of the materials on record he is prima facie of the view that a case for starting a suo moto proceeding has been made out. 4. Needless to point out that in the matter of adjudication of any such proceeding to be initiated, principles of natural justice is got to be followed by the Revenue Officer who is to act as a quasi-judicial authority and a Tribunal. It may also be pointed out that if, on the basis of a proceeding under S. 44(2a), a Big Raiyat proceeding is required to be initiated, then the Revenue Officer must give the petitioner a reasonable time to prefer an appeal under S. 44(3) after ensuring that the appellant has been supplied with the copy of the judgment passed in the 44(2a) proceeding. The officers vested with the quasi-judicial power must appreciate that they should act with all reasonable fairness as is expected from a quasi-Judicial body and should also ensure that the purpose of the adjudication is not to frustrate the spirit of the Act but to comply with the same. 5. The Rule is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Proceeding quashed directions given.