J. N. HORE, J. ( 1 ) THESE four appeals which arise out of the same judgment have been heard analogously and the present judgment will govern them all. Title Suit No. ,231 of 1967 filed by Smt. Muktakesi Das (respondent in S. A. NO. 1797 of 1971), Title Suit No. 232 of 1967 was filed by Hrisikesh Das (respondent in S. A. 1798 of 1971), Title Suit No. 233 of 1967 was filed by Netai Charan Das (respondent in S. A. No. 1799 of 1971) and Title Suit No. 234 of 1967 was filed by Gourhari Das who is respondent in S. A. No. 1800 of 1971. Common questions of fact and law were involved in the four suits which were heard analogously by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Contai and disposed of by a common judgment. The four title appeals preferred by the State against the judgment and decree passed in the said four suits were also heard analogously by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur and disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS of the above suits filed the suits for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegations that the plaintiff of each of the suits acquired title to the suit properties of the respective suits from defendant No. 2 Prafulla Kumar Das. husband of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 231 of 1967 and father of the plaintiffs in three other suits, by virtue of a deed of Nirupanpatra dated 12 Agrahayan 1365 B. S. and that the plaintiff of each of the suits was in possession of the said lands exclusively. The plaintiffs came to, know in Jaistha 1373 B. S. that the suit lands of each of the suits had vested in the State as per deduction Case No. 5 under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The further case of the plaintiff was that 26. 75?) acres of agricultural and non-agricultural lands covered by the Nirupanpatra were retained by the defendant No. 2 Prafulla Kumar Das by filing a statement in 'b' form and there was no reason for any proceeding under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in respect of the suit lands and that the said proceeding in which the plaintiffs of the four suits were not parties was illegal, ultra vines inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. Notice under section 80 C. P. C. was duly served by on the State of West Bengal by each of the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) THE State of West Bengal contested these suits by tiling written statements in which it was pleaded inter alia that the Nirupanpatra was a collusive document and that as a result of the enquiry under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act some transfers made by the defendant No. 2 were found to be bona fide and consequently the quantity of land transferred was to be deducted from the retained lands of the defendant No. 2 and the suit lands were thus deducted under the provisions of section 5a (3) (ii) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) UPON consideration of the evidence on record the learned Munsif has held that the suit lands were retained lands of the defendant No. 2 and that the paintiff of each of the suits acquired title by virtue of the registered Nirupanpatra subsequent to the proceeding under section 5a. The order for deduction of the suit lands in the same proceeding under section 5a has been held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. He has, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the suit lands did not vest in the State and the plaintiffs have been able to prove their title to and possession of the respective suit lands. He has, therefore, decreed each of the suits, Relying upon the Division Bench decisions of this court in Ambzcjkshya Mukherjee v. State in Civil Revision Case Nos. 189 and 190 of 1962, the lower appellate court has held that the deduction of the suit lands in an enquiry under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. He has accordiugly dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Munsif in the four suits subject to any proceeding that may be taken by the State Government for the administration of consequences under Clause (ii) of section SA (3) involving the suit properties. Being aggrieved the State has preferred the second appeal. ( 5 ) IN Ambujakshya Mukherjee v. State (CR. Nos. Being aggrieved the State has preferred the second appeal. ( 5 ) IN Ambujakshya Mukherjee v. State (CR. Nos. 189 and 190 of 1962) as referred to above, it has been, clearly held by the Division Bench that section 5a is -only concerned with declaring a transfer bona fide or not bona fide If it is not bona fide it is cancelled. If it is a bona fide transfer, it will make an order to that effect that it is bona fide, But administration of consequences such as in Clauses (i) and (ii) in section 5a (3) involves many other enquiries which cannot be proper or genuine to the limited enquiry under section 5a of the Act. If a transfer is found to be bona fide, further consequences naturally will ensue under the Act at appropriate stage before appropriate authorities under the Act. It has further ken observed that the bona fide transferor would be entitled to raise objection if and when there are further enquiries and if and when the lands of the bona fide transferor are sought to be deducted from the retained lands. It is clear from the above decision that after declaring the transfer to be bona fide the consideration of the consequences which arise after the said declaration under Clause (ii) of section 5a (3) cannot be made by the Revenue Officer in the same proceeding as has been done in this case. Therefore, the order of deduction of the suit lands from the retained lands of defendant No. 2 in the limited enquiry under section 5a is illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) MR. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State does not controvert the above position of law. But he has contended that no specific issue has been framed nor there is finding as to whether the alleged Nirupanpatra was a sham transaction and as such the findings of the court below cannot be sustained. There is no substance in the contention which must be rejected. This point was never raised before the lower appellate court. The only point that was raised on behalf of the State of West Bengal in the first appeal was whether the order of deduction passed in the enquiry proceeding under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was illegal or not. This point was never raised before the lower appellate court. The only point that was raised on behalf of the State of West Bengal in the first appeal was whether the order of deduction passed in the enquiry proceeding under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was illegal or not. Moreover, though no specific issue was framed in this regard, issue No. 4 regarding the alleged title to and possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands covers this issue also and upon consideration of this comprehensive issue, the learned Munsif has specifically recorded a finding that the alleged Nirupanpatra in a genuine and valid document and that the plaintiff have been able to prove by sufficient evidence that they have been in possession of their respective lands on the basis of Nirupanpatra. This finding of fact was never challenged before the lower appellate court and the appellant can not challenge the same in the second appeal. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the lower appellate court is confirmed. I make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.