Section 5A of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the question of title. The enquiry under section 5A is limited to ascertaining whether there is a bona fide transfer within the specific meaning of 'bona fide' as defined in section 5A(7) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to conduct a full-fledged investigation into the question of title remains intact.

( 1 ) -THIS appeal arises out of the suit by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration of her title to the suit land and other declarations and for permanent injunction.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case was that during her minority her father took lease of the suit lands measuring 4. 59 acres on her behalf on payment of a selami of Rs. 1076/- from Bejoy Kumar Bera and possession was delivered by an Amalnama executed by him on 28th Falgun, 1348 B. S. corresponding to 4th March, 1943, Since then the plaintiff was in possession. Subsequently, a jama of Rs. 19/1/3 pies was fixed for the suit lands. Another jote with a jama of Rs. 2/6/6 pies was started in respect of 52 decimals of land in Plot No. 1194 of Mouza Birulia. She paid rent of the two jamas till 1365 B. S. in the landlord's sherista. In the mean time, the plaintiff was married to the landlord Bejoy Bera's son Bidyut Bera, defendant No. 2. Excepting Plot No. 445 all other plots in dispute were recorded in her name in the current R. S. record-of-rights. The Revenue Officer without any jurisdiction initiated a proceeding under section 5a of the Estates Acquisition Act in respect of the suit lands. Transfer by lease to the plaintiff was found to be not bona fide and the entries in R. S. record-of-rights were cancelled and the suit plot was recorded in the name of plaintiffs husband Bidyut Bera. The suit lands were recorded as vested lands of Government inasmuch as Bidyut Bera did not retain the same. The order of the Revenue Officer is not only without jurisdiction but was illegal. As the order of the Revenue Officer clouded the plaintiff's title to suit-lands, the suit was instituted to clear that cloud after service of notice under section 80 C. P. C.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1, State of West Bengal contested the suit. The material allegations in the plaint were denied. The defence case was that the Amalnama, receipt and dakhilas were all collusive and fictitious documents fabricated for the purpose of the suit. In the proceeding under section 5a the alleged settlement was found to be mala fide and accordingly the R. S. record-of-rights were corrected, and the suit-lands were recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 who was a big raiyat. As he had not retained the suit land by submitting 'b' Form, these lands vested in the State of West Bengal. According to this defendant, the order passed by the Revenue Officer under section 5a of the proceeding was with jurisdiction and legal and binding.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif has found that the Amalnama, receipt and dakhila are all genuine documents. The suit lands were genuinely leased out to the plaintiff by Bejoy Kumar Bera and she was all along in possession. As the transfer was effected before 5. 5. 53 the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under section 5a of the Estates Acquisition Act and, therefore, his order passed in that proceeding was without jurisdiction and illegal. The entries in the R. S. record-of-rights made on the basis of the order passed under section 5a of the Act were erroneous. Upon these findings he has decreed the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendant No. 1, State of West Bengal preferred Title Appeal No. 712/67. The lower Appellate Court has accepted the contention of State of West Bengal that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and question the order passed by the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under section 5a of the Estates Acquisition Act inasmuch as the Revenue officer had the authority to initiate the proceeding. According to lower Appellate Court the scheme of the section clearly shows that the jurisdiction created by section 5a is a complete one setting up a complete machinery for the investigation to those matters which are provided for in the Act and there is implied bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to examine whether the authorities dealing with the particu