A person interested in a proceeding under Section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, is entitled to receive a notice, and if no notice is issued, the entire proceeding cannot bind the person interested.

( 1 ) 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 12. 8. 77 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balurghat, West dinajpur in Title Appeal No. 63/1976 affirming the judgement and decree dated 9. 4. 1976 passed by the learned Munsif, Balurghat in Title Suit No. 92/1973.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff Birendra Nath Sarkar filed a Title Suit being T. S. No. 92/73 praying for declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in 'a' Schedule as well as 'b' Schedule of the plaint, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiffs case in brief is that the owner of the suit plots was one Kader bux Mondal who settled the suit plots along with other lands to his sons Abdul hadi and Abdul Hakim and in the RS records-of-right their names were duly recorded. Thereafter, on the basis of two separate sale deeds executed and registered on 4. 3. 58, the recorded owners sold the suit property to the present plaintiff and also to Arati Rani Sarkar, and subsequently Arati Rani Sarkar sold her purchased property to the plaintiff on the basis of another sale deed dated 22. 1. 62. The plaintiff started possessing the purchased property in khas, but suddenly the respondent, the State of West Bengal tried to dispossess him from the said lands alleging that those were vested lands. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction restraining the State of West Bengal from disturbing his peaceful possession in the suit lands.

( 3 ) THE State Government contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging inter alia that the lands were wrongly recorded in the names of Abdul hadi and Abdul Hakim in the RS record-of-rights and that their names were struck off on the basis of a proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act and thereafter the name of the original intermediary kader Bux Mondal was recorded and on its basis, it was found that the suit lands cannot be held by Kader Bux Mondal being held in excess and accordingly, an order was passed for vesting. So, the State Government prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif after hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record came to a finding that the plaintiff was able to prove his right, title and possession in respect of the suit lands and that the suit lands did not vest in the State Government and accordingly, the suit was decreed and the State government was permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE State Government being dissatisfied with the order preferred the first appeal before the learned District Judge, Balurghat and it was registered as Title Appeal No. 63/76 on its transfer to the Court of the learned Additional district Judge. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides concluded that Abdul Hadi and Abdul Hakim were tenants in respect of the suit lands and they rightly sold the suit property. So, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court.

( 6 ) THE State Government has accordingly preferred this second appeal. In course of admission of this appeal, substantial questions of law as required under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court were not framed, but at the time of hearing of this appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed: (1) Did the Courts below proceed on the wrong basis that the original revisional settlement record stood in the names of the vendors of the plaintiff and dakhilas having been issued in their favour, the vendors of the plaintiff acquired valid title in the suit land? (2) Did the Courts below commit error of law in not finding that the present plaintiff being post vesting transferee cannot get any relief whatsoever? (3) Did the Courts below commit error of law in assessing the evidence and the title of the plaintiff ?