The principle of res judicata is applicable to proceedings under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and the Revenue Officer has no authority to review and/or revise a decision made by his predecessor in office on the self-same issue.

( 1 ) IN this Rule the initiation of a suo motu proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act being Case No 50 of 1980 and the notices issued by the Revenue Officer, Settlement Thana Camp Cahityanapur in connection with the aforesaid suo motu proceedings are under challenge. The petitioners contend that they (petitioners) are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and (the petitioners and)/or their predecessors-in-interest have always followed their personal law. It is contended by the petitioners that the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Revisional Record of Rights finally framed and published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act on the basis that the family was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and the respective shares of the petitioners were noted in the Revisional Record of Rights. It further appears that previously proceedings under Section 44 (2a) were initiated suo motu by the competent Revenue Officer, being Cases Nos. 1407, 1406, 1409 to 1412. In the said 44 (2a) suo motu proceedings, the Revenue Officer had accepted the contention of the petitioners that the family was governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and, as such there was no necessity of revising the record of rights in respect of the lands in question excepting the lands referred to in Schedule 'e'. It was held that so far as the Schedule 'e' lands were concerned, the said lands being personal lands of some of the coparceners, there was no occasion to record the names of all the petitioners and, accordingly, the finally published record of rights relating to 'e' Schedule lands should be revised incorporating the names of the real owners. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeals under Section 44 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, being Estates Acquisition Appeals Nos. 306 to 311 of 1971. The said appeals were heard by the learned District Judge, Midnapore being the Tribunal appointed by the State Government under Section 44 (3 ). It appears that the learned Tribunal allowed the said appeals and held that adjudication in respect of 'e' schedule properties in holding the same as personal properties of some of the coparceners was not properly made and as such the Revenue Officer should decide such question afresh in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. It may be noted in this connection that even before the appellate tribunal, no dispute was raised to the effect that parties were not governed by the Mitakshara School of law. After the aforesaid judgment made by the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue Officer re-heard the matter and in respect of 'e' Schedule properties, the Revenue Officer came to the finding that the said properties were also not the self-acquired properties of some of the coparceners and as such the Revisional Record of Rights incorporating the names of all the coparceners was quite correct and there was no necessity of revising the entries of the finally published record of rights relating to the said 'e' Schedule properties. The petitioners contend that thereafter by initiating the impugned suo moto proceeding under Section 44 (2a), the subsequent Revenue Officer purported to reopen the said adjudication made under Section 44 (2a) since modified and/or upheld by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 (3 ). It is contended by the petitioners that the Revenue Officer is illegally and without jurisdiction, trying to start the impugned proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the Estates Acquisition Act being Case No. 50 of 1979 solely for the purpose of reviewing the said adjudications made earlier by competent authorities. The petitioners contend that such initiation under Section 44 (2a) for the purpose of reviewing the earlier decisions being completely illegal and without jurisdiction, the initiation of such proceeding and the notices issued in connection thereof should be quashed and the Revenue Officer should be pr