JUDGMENT 1. THESE Rules were obtained together, on 20. 12. 76, as points involved are the same. 2. IT has been stated that long before the coming into force of the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the petitioners acquired the lands as mentioned in the petitions. The particulars of lands have been mentioned in the petitions. It has been stated that since such acquisition of the concerned lands from the respondent-settlors, the said settlor had lost all interest and possession of the lands in question were still are with the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that revisional settlement operations under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) were started duly and at that time, they got their names recorded, initially in the draft record-of-rights and subsequently, to the finally published record-of-rights. It was claimed that long after such final publication, on or about 27. 3. 69, suo motu proceedings under Section 44 (2a)of the said Act, were issued in respect of the lands in question, for revision of the record-of-rights, on the allegations that there were suspicion about the genuineness of the transfers and the manner in which the petitioners, acquired the lands in question. It was the further case of the petitioners, that they duly entered appearance in the proceedings and challenged the jurisdiction of the authority concerned, to question the genuineness of the transfers in question and that apart, they produced necessary evidence, both oral and documentary, to prove their possession in "respect of the concerned lands. 3. THE authority concerned, thereafter disposed of all the proceedings, holding inter alia amongst other that the lands in question should be recorded in the name of the original intermediary viz, the settlor, instead of the petitioners. It has been alleged that while disposing of the proceedings, the authority concerned, did not at all consider the contentions as raised by the petitioners, regarding the jurisdiction of the authority concerned, to go into the question of genuineness of the transfers. 4. AGAINST such determinations as mentioned above, the petitioners preferred appeals to the Tribunal, which, however, according to the petitioners, without considering the specific pleas as taken, by the judgment dated 11. 9. 76, dismissed the appeals. Against such appellate orders, the present Rules, as mentioned above, were obtained on 20. 12. 76. 5. MR. 4. AGAINST such determinations as mentioned above, the petitioners preferred appeals to the Tribunal, which, however, according to the petitioners, without considering the specific pleas as taken, by the judgment dated 11. 9. 76, dismissed the appeals. Against such appellate orders, the present Rules, as mentioned above, were obtained on 20. 12. 76. 5. MR. Mitra appearing in support of the rules placed the different amendments, whereby, the time for initiation of proceedings either suo motu or on applications, have been increased from time to time. It was claimed by him that when on 27. 3. 69. the impugned proceedings were initiated, the relevant amendment to the said Act viz. West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment)Act (West Bengal) Act IX of 1967), was not a proper place of legislation, as it did not receive the assent of the President. According to Mr. Mitra, such assent was received on 3. 11. 69. He claimed that since such assent was not received at the point of time when the intimation was made, so the entire proceeding as initiated, was improper, without jurisdiction, void and ultravires. 6. THE question of validity of the amendments as incorporated though the West bengal Act IX of 1967, were in issue, in a special Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Ananda Kumar Chakraborty and ant. v. Revenue Officer and ors. 1977 (1)CLJ 1 . There, for the reasons as disclosed in the determination, the said amendment has been found to be valid and legal and as such. I think I shall not be justified in holding otherwise, even though Mr. Mitra strenuously contended, on a reference to the determinations in the case of Jawarmal v. The State of Rajasthan and ors. ( AIR 1966 sc 764 ), that the subsequent determination of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatrao Esajirao limibekar and ors. v. State of bombay and ors. ( AIR 1970 SC 126 ,) on the basis whereof the determination of the special Bench judgment was made, was improper. As mentioned hereinbefore, i am not authorized to hold as such, in agreement with Mr. Mitra, in view of the determinations by the Special Bench. As such, the points of the Constitutional invalidity, as sought to be urged by Mr. Mitra, on the incorporation of West Bengal Act ix of 1967, cannot be upheld. As mentioned hereinbefore, i am not authorized to hold as such, in agreement with Mr. Mitra, in view of the determinations by the Special Bench. As such, the points of the Constitutional invalidity, as sought to be urged by Mr. Mitra, on the incorporation of West Bengal Act ix of 1967, cannot be upheld. But even in view of the above findings, the Special Bench judgment and the ultimate findings therein, held Mr. Mitra. It has been observed in the Special Bench judgment that the subsequent assent of the President, to the subsequent amending act, can only be effective from the date of the subsequent assent to the subsequent amending Act. On the basis of such determinations, the said West Bengal Act IX of 1967, can be said to be effective with effect from 3. 11. 69, when the assent was received to the subsequent legislation. So, on 27. 3. 69, when the concerned proceedings were initiated, they should be deemed to be beyond jurisdiction. 7. AS such, on the point as indicated above, the Rules should succeed and starting from the initiations upto the appellate orders, they are set aside. There will be no order for costs. This of course, will not prejudice the respondents, if they are so advised or if they so intend and are authorized, to proceed afresh in the matter and to make appropriate determinations in accordance with law. Rule's made absolute.