( 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