PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was moved on 1/07/1988, challenging the final order dated 13/06/1988, passed in a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, which was initiated for the second time in respect of the correction of the selfsame Khatian which would be evident from the following facts. ( 2 ) AT the time of admission of the writ petition Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. having issued a Rule granted interim order in the presence of Mr. Bijon Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate, for the State-respondents, and thereby, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice also granted stay of operation of the order in (sic) such second Section 44 (2a) proceeding. ( 3 ) THE writ petition has come up for final hearing before me on 10/07/1990, and it was heard in part on the said date and on the subsequent dates, that is, on July 17, and today, 31/07/1990. ( 4 ) MR. Santimoy Panda, learned Advocate at the final hearing of the writ petition places the following facts from the writ petition which is set out hereinbelow : the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons and grandsons of the original raiyat Bipin Bihari Sarkar and the other petitioners Nos. 6 to 9 are the daughters of the said deceased Bipin Bihari Sarkar, who died in the year 1957. After the death of Bipin Bihari Sarkar, the petitioners inherited their respective shares from the retained lands, measuring about 25 acres which was allowed to be retained under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. ( 5 ) 6. The said Bipin Bihari Sarkar transferred some lands in favour of his three sons in the year 1948 and on the basis of such transfer, their names have been duly recorded in the revisional settlement operation in the year 1956. ( 6 ) A proceeding under Section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, was initiated in the year 1958 in the name of the transferees, namely, Harekrishna Sarkar, Prankrishna Sarkar and Sasadhar Sarkar. The Revenue Officer started the said proceeding for ascertaining as to whether the transfer made by Bipin Bihari Sarkar to his sons was bona fide or not. The Revenue Officer started the said proceeding for ascertaining as to whether the transfer made by Bipin Bihari Sarkar to his sons was bona fide or not. In that S. 5a proceeding, being case No West Dijanpoure No. 606/ 3/ 57 of 1957, the Revenue Officer, held that the transfer was made long before 1953, and as such, did not come within the mischief period and it was declared to be bona fide. ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in the year 1970, a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act was started in respect of the said land owned by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 and father of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. In the said proceeding, the Revenue Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, authorised under Section 44 (2a) cancelled the R. O. R. prepared in the name of the said raiyat and treated the entire lands, as the lands of the deceased raiyat Bipin Bihari Sarkar. An appeal being preferred before the appellate authority challenging the said decision dated 6/08/1970 passed in the said proceeding under Section 44 (2a), the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment and order dated 26/07/1971 set aside the judgment passed by the Revenue Officer and allowed the appeal on the ground that after allowing the S. 5a proceeding, the subsequent Section 44 (2a) proceeding could not be sustained in the eye of law. The said judgment in the connected appeal has been annexed as annexure- "b" to the writ petition. Thereafter the second proceeding under Section 44 (2a) has been initiated and final order has been passed by the Revenue Officer on 13/06/1988, stated as aforesaid, which has been impuged in the instant writ petition. ( 8 ) MR. Santimoy Panda, learned Advocate for petitioners, at the final hearing of the writ petition, has placed the following points for consideration of this Court : (1) In view of the earlier finding in S. 5a case and the appellate order passed in the first S. 44 (2a) proceeding, the respondents are estopped from initiating a subsequent proceeding under Section 44 (2a) for the purpose of correction of record of rights, as the same is barred by the principles or res judicata or principles analogous thereto. (2) That a subsequent officer having concurrent jurisdiction, cannot and should not be allowed to reopen the finding of the earlier Revenue Officer, as it was sought to be done in the instant case, in view of the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Banerjee v. Charge Officer, Birbhum, reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta 43. (3) According to Mr. Panda, no vesting of land could take place, in a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act itself, as according to the scheme of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the subsequent proceeding has to be drawn up for the purpose of vesting of land, consequent upon the finding of the proceeding under S. 44 (2a), which has not been done, in the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) MR. Bijon Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents relies on two affidavits in opposition, first affirmed on 8/09/1988, and the second, affirmed on 16/07/1990, dealing with the supplementary affidavit, places the following facts for consideration of this Court from the said affidavits, which are as follows : ( 10 ) "i say that the lands of Khatian Nos. 95, 99, 151 and 153 measuring in all 55. 41 acres of Mouza Jaunia J. L. 27 were wrongly recorded in the R. S. Rs. in favour of Harekrishna Sarkar, Prankrishna Sarkar and Sasadhar Sarkar all sons of Bipin Bihari Sarkar and that the said Bipin Bihari Sarkar was allowed to retain full quota of agricultural land as admissible to him under Section 6 (1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, and thus the correction of R. O. Rs. was necessary and hence the present proceeding under Section 44 (2a) bearing No. 12/ Che-R/88 was drawn up legally in accordance with law. I say that the earlier proceeding No. 19 of 1970 was drawn up with the lands of Khatian Nos. 95 and 99 of Mouza Jaunia J. L. 27 P. S. Raiganj only but the present proceeding No. 12/ Che-R/ 88 was drawn up with the lands of Khatian Nos. I say that the earlier proceeding No. 19 of 1970 was drawn up with the lands of Khatian Nos. 95 and 99 of Mouza Jaunia J. L. 27 P. S. Raiganj only but the present proceeding No. 12/ Che-R/ 88 was drawn up with the lands of Khatian Nos. 95, 99, 151 and 153 of the said mouza after taking into consideration of the fact that these Khatians were prepared during R. S. operation without any reference of any valid deed or note or reference, as required under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules (Para 6 of Schedule 86 appended to Rule 25) requiring verification of the relevant deeds for their noting and also for correction in the R. O. Rs. , is (sic) (if) any and this reason has duly been recorded in the order sheet and as such there was nothing wrong in drawing up this S. 44 (2a) proceeding, with reference to statements made in paragraph 11, I say that the instant S. 44 (2a) Case No. 12/ Cho-r-88 was started on 1-6-88 and fixed on 9-6-88 for hearing and that on 9-6-88 Sri Hare Krishna Sarkar appeared before R. O. and filed Hajira and that on asking for production of documents of necessary papers he could produce nothing and that on his prayer for time, time was allowed fixing 13-6-88 for further hearing and that on 13-6-88 the said Hare Krishna Sarkar again appeared before R. O. and on this day too he could not produce any document excepting a rent receipt for 1960 showing payment of rent for same land. " ( 11 ) MR. Panda, in reply has also drawn attention of this Court to the second supplementary affidavit affirmed on 10/07/1990, wherefrom it appears that a petition was filed by one Suhash Chandra Das, claiming himself to be the Assistant Secretary, Sarabharat Krishak Sabha, Raiganj Thana Committee, for taking necessary steps against the alleged miscreants, namely, Hare Krishna Sarkar, Mohammed Bhadru, Noor Alam and Mohammad Ali and Bhagda Barma, on 27/05/1990, as during the pendency of the writ petition, the miscreants third party are trying to dispossess the writ petitioners from the said lands. ( 12 ) I have heard the submissions of both parties and considered the facts stated in the writ petition, as well as the affidavits referred to hereinabove, and I am of the view that the second S. 44 (2a) proceeding, is not maintainable in law and the final order passed on 13/06/1988, is liable to be set aside, and as this Court is setting aside the order of vesting dated 13/06/1988, there cannot be any question about settlement of the land in favour of third parties, treating the land as "vested land", and as such, the respondents are permanently restrained from taking any steps to settle the land in favour of any third party and, if the land has been settled in the meantime, in violation of the interim order passed by this Court the respondents will be duty bound to initiate a proceeding under Section 49 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for annulment of such settlement of land. ( 13 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed as above and the Rule is made absolute. ( 14 ) LET a writ in the nature of mandamus issue in terms of prayer (a) of the instant writ petition. ( 15 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.