# State of West Bengal & Ors v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 132
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-02-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2012
- **Bench:** M. M. Sundresh, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-west-bengal-ors-v-jai-hind-pvt-ltd-38964
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the Revenue Officer could have reviewed
the earlier order of the Revenue Officer; whether the respondentcompany had fulfilled the conditions to be entitled to retain the lands
u/s.6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953; and whether it was "exclusively
engaged in agricultural farming" as on 1st January 1952 to claim
exemption from vesting under the 1971 determination.
Headnotes†
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - ss.6(1),
6(1)(j) - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - ss.57, 14T(3) -
Power of review by Revenue Officer - Respondent company
purchased 239 acres of land before and after coming into
force of the 1953 Act - Respondent company claimed benefit
of s.6(1)(j) to retain entire 239 acres since it was engaged in
farming - Revenue Officer by order dated 07.10.1971 held
the respondent not entitled to the benefit since it failed
to produce any evidence to prove that the company was
created exclusively for agricultural purpose - Said order
attained finality - Respondent-company stood divested of
the agricultural land held by it, the same having vested in the
State Government - Another notice issued to the respondent
u/ss.57 and 14T(3) of WBLR Act - While the writ petition
assailing the notice was pending, some amicable settlement
between the parties took place - Thereafter, earlier order of
Revenue Officer was reviewed - Revenue Officer by his final
order dated 07.05.2008 allowed the review and set aside the
earlier order dated 07.10.1971 passed by the earlier Revenue
Officer, thereby allowing the respondent to retain a total of
about 211.21 acres of land and vesting nearly 28.50 acres
in the State - Subsequently, Revenue Officer did not accept
* Author
498
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the land revenue by the respondent company - Respondent
filed application, before the tribunal which was dismissed
and quashed the review order holding that the concerned
Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review
proceedings as no such power of review was specifically
given - However, High Court allowed the writ petition and
directed the Revenue Officer to accept the land revenue from
the respondent in respect of the lands which were allowed
to be retained pursuant to the review order passed by the
Revenue Officer - Challenge to:
Held: Review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the
fresh order wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio - WBEA
Act does not confer any power of substantive review upon the
Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication -
Government Order dated 26.02.2008, even though approved at
the ministerial level, could not create or confer such jurisdiction on
the Revenue Officer - Review further fails on merits, as none of
the conditions prescribed u/Ord. XLVII r. 1 CPC satisfied - Review
order of 2008 was fundamentally misconceived, contrary to settled
principles governing the exercise of review power - Furthermore,
the decision to initiate the review was driven by considerations of
perceived economic advantage, such as prospective employment
generation, rather than by any of the grounds recognised in
law for invoking the power of review - Such considerations,
however laudable in the executive or policy domain, are wholly
extraneous to the limited and strictly circumscribed jurisdiction of
review - Concluded determination cannot be reopened on the
basis of subsequent policy preferences or economic expediency,
in the absence of a legally sustainable ground contemplated
under the law governing review - Direction issued by the State
Government vide Government Order dated 26.02.2008 to review
the earlier vesting determination was made after an inordinate
and unexplained lapse of about four decades from the passing of
the vesting order dated 07.10.1971, which had attained finality -
Reasons stated do not constitute a legally sustainable ground to
justify reopening a concluded determination after such an inordinate
lapse of time - Exercise of review jurisdict

## Text

_Characters 0–38,977 of 105,556. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38977 for what follows._

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 497 : 2026 INSC 132
State of West Bengal & Ors.
v.
Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2012)
06 February 2026
[M. M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the Revenue Officer could have reviewed
the earlier order of the Revenue Officer; whether the respondentcompany had fulfilled the conditions to be entitled to retain the lands
u/s.6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953; and whether it was "exclusively
engaged in agricultural farming" as on 1st January 1952 to claim
exemption from vesting under the 1971 determination.
Headnotes†
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - ss.6(1),
6(1)(j) - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - ss.57, 14T(3) -
Power of review by Revenue Officer - Respondent company
purchased 239 acres of land before and after coming into
force of the 1953 Act - Respondent company claimed benefit
of s.6(1)(j) to retain entire 239 acres since it was engaged in
farming - Revenue Officer by order dated 07.10.1971 held
the respondent not entitled to the benefit since it failed
to produce any evidence to prove that the company was
created exclusively for agricultural purpose - Said order
attained finality - Respondent-company stood divested of
the agricultural land held by it, the same having vested in the
State Government - Another notice issued to the respondent
u/ss.57 and 14T(3) of WBLR Act - While the writ petition
assailing the notice was pending, some amicable settlement
between the parties took place - Thereafter, earlier order of
Revenue Officer was reviewed - Revenue Officer by his final
order dated 07.05.2008 allowed the review and set aside the
earlier order dated 07.10.1971 passed by the earlier Revenue
Officer, thereby allowing the respondent to retain a total of
about 211.21 acres of land and vesting nearly 28.50 acres
in the State - Subsequently, Revenue Officer did not accept
* Author
498
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the land revenue by the respondent company - Respondent
filed application, before the tribunal which was dismissed
and quashed the review order holding that the concerned
Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review
proceedings as no such power of review was specifically
given - However, High Court allowed the writ petition and
directed the Revenue Officer to accept the land revenue from
the respondent in respect of the lands which were allowed
to be retained pursuant to the review order passed by the
Revenue Officer - Challenge to:
Held: Review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the
fresh order wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio - WBEA
Act does not confer any power of substantive review upon the
Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication -
Government Order dated 26.02.2008, even though approved at
the ministerial level, could not create or confer such jurisdiction on
the Revenue Officer - Review further fails on merits, as none of
the conditions prescribed u/Ord. XLVII r. 1 CPC satisfied - Review
order of 2008 was fundamentally misconceived, contrary to settled
principles governing the exercise of review power - Furthermore,
the decision to initiate the review was driven by considerations of
perceived economic advantage, such as prospective employment
generation, rather than by any of the grounds recognised in
law for invoking the power of review - Such considerations,
however laudable in the executive or policy domain, are wholly
extraneous to the limited and strictly circumscribed jurisdiction of
review - Concluded determination cannot be reopened on the
basis of subsequent policy preferences or economic expediency,
in the absence of a legally sustainable ground contemplated
under the law governing review - Direction issued by the State
Government vide Government Order dated 26.02.2008 to review
the earlier vesting determination was made after an inordinate
and unexplained lapse of about four decades from the passing of
the vesting order dated 07.10.1971, which had attained finality -
Reasons stated do not constitute a legally sustainable ground to
justify reopening a concluded determination after such an inordinate
lapse of time - Exercise of review jurisdiction in 2008 to reopen
a vesting determination that had attained finality decades earlier
was wholly impermissible in law - Tribunal in setting aside the
fresh review order dated 07.05.2008 and restoring the vesting
determination of 1971, rightly appreciated the statutory scheme
of the WBEA Act, and well-settled principles governing the limits
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
499
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
of quasi-judicial power - Conclusion of the tribunal that the
Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen by way of review of
a concluded vesting order is consistent with both legislative intent
and binding precedents - High Court, however, fell into error in
reversing the tribunal's decision - It incorrectly proceeded on the
premise that the Government Order issued u/s.57A, having been
approved by the Minister-in-Charge, constituted sufficient authority
to confer review jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officer - This
approach conflated executive direction with statutory conferment
of substantive power and treated review as a mere procedural
incident of Civil Court powers - High Court also overlooked the
limits on vesting the judicial function of review power in executive
authorities - Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside -
Order of the tribunal restored, and the review order passed by
the Revenue Officer quashed - Vesting order dated 07.10.1971
to continue to operate in accordance with the law. [Paras 75-94]
Review - Power of - Exercise of power by quasi-judicial
authorities, when - Power of the Revenue Officer to review
its earlier order by relying on s.57A of the WBEA Act, 1953 -
Permissibility:
Held: Power of review is not an inherent power of the Court -
Quasi-judicial authorities can exercise only those powers which are
expressly conferred upon them by the statute - Unless a specific
provision has been made in the WBEA Act of 1953, investing the
power of review in the Revenue Officer or such other authorities
mentioned u/s.53, these authorities could not have possessed the
power or authority to review an earlier order - Omnibus expression
used in the State notification dated 09.01.1958 investing all the
Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers and Revenue
Officers with all the powers of the Civil Court, does not amount
to conferment of power of review as well to these Authorities -
s.57A of the WBEA Act cannot be construed to include vesting of
power of review in the absence of a clear statutory provision to
such quasi-judicial authority manned by an executive functionary
like the Revenue Officer, bereft of any judicial training or judicial
qualification - Further, the legislature did not intend to confer
the power of review to the authorities provided under the said
Act is evident from the proviso to sub-section (3) of s.57B which
provides that in deciding a dispute under this sub-section, the
Revenue Officer shall not re-open any matter which has already
been enquired into, investigated, determined or decided by the
500
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State Government or any authority under any of the provisions
of this Act - 1971 vesting order passed by the Revenue Officer
after full inquiry and adjudication, constitutes such a determination
which also attained finality - Revenue Officer thus stood barred
from re-opening, revisiting, or redeciding its earlier vesting order
in view of the said proviso - Thus, the scheme of the WBEA Act,
1953 does not contemplate any executive authority reopening a
vesting determination or substituting a decision already rendered
after due inquiry - Authorities enumerated u/s.53 of the WBEA
Act, 1953, such as Revenue Officers, Settlement Officers and
Compensation Officers, among others, are vested only with such
limited adjudicatory powers as the statute expressly confers upon
them. [Paras 31, 34, 49-52]
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - s.6(1)(j) - Benefit
under, claim - Whether the respondent-company had fulfilled
the conditions to be entitled to retain the subject lands in
u/s.6(1)(j) - Whether it was "exclusively engaged in agricultural
farming" as on 1st January 1952 to claim exemption from
vesting under the 1971 determination:
Held: To get the benefit contemplated u/s.6(1)(j) a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 must establish that
it was engaged exclusively in farming (and in business, if any,
connected directly with such farming); and that it was so engaged
as on 1st January 1952 - On facts, the respondent company even
after being given sufficient opportunities, failed to discharge its onus
of proving the first condition before the vesting authority (Revenue
Officer) in the earlier proceedings in 1971 u/s.6(1)(j) - Careful
examination of the 1971 vesting order reveals that, although the
respondent-company sought to rely on its MOA to demonstrate
that it was engaged in agricultural activities, Revenue Officer rightly
declined to treat these clauses as conclusive proof of "exclusive"
engagement in farming - 1971 vesting order does not suffer from any
legal flaw, and it correctly concluded that the respondent-company
failed to prove the statutory precondition of s.6(1)(j), despite being
given sufficient time - Finding by the Revenue Officer that in spite
of several opportunities granted, the respondent-company could
not prove the essential statutory requirement was inevitable and
unimpeachable, and the vesting of the land in the State had to
follow as a natural consequence - Nothing brought to the notice
by the respondent-company of the existence of sufficient material
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
501
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
evidence to establish the fact that it was exclusively engaged in
farming as on 01.01.1952 - Also the documents submitted by the
respondent company do not support the claim of the respondent
company that it is exclusively engaged in agricultural activities as
on 01.01.1952, as either these came into existence long after the
vesting order dated 07.10.1971 culminated or were not produced
timely by the respondent-company before the Revenue Officer at the
time of the 1971 vesting proceedings, despite multiple opportunities
being granted - Thus, these documents cannot furnish a basis
for the review of the 1971 vesting determination, especially in the
absence of any statutory provision allowing the same - Belated
reliance on such material, after a lapse of nearly four decades,
cannot constitute a legally sustainable ground for reopening a
concluded vesting determination by a Revenue Officer - Thus, the
respondent not entitled to retain the lands u/s.6(1)(j), as it could
not prove its claim that it was "exclusively engaged in agricultural
farming" as on 01.01.1952 - 1971 vesting order does not suffer
from any legal infirmity. [Paras 64-73]
Review - Allowing Revenue Officer to Review of its own
concluded quasi-judicial order - Effect:
Held: Allowing a Revenue Officer to review its own concluded
quasi-judicial order would trench upon the constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers, which constitutes part of the basic structure of
the Constitution - Though vested with limited adjudicatory functions,
authorities under the WBEA Act, 1953, remain essentially members
of the executive branch and are neither part of the judicial organ nor
equipped with the institutional safeguards that attend judicial office,
such as independence from executive control - Further, the power
of review is essentially a core judicial function, and conferring such
a power upon executive authorities, absent an express legislative
mandate, would blur the constitutionally mandated demarcation
between the executive and the judiciary, permit the executive
authorities to sit in judgment over their own decisions, and erode the
rule of law by diluting finality - Any contrary construction would, be
inconsistent with legislative intent and would impermissibly encroach
upon the basic structure of the Constitution - Thus, on facts, the
fresh order of review dated 07.05.2008 by the Revenue Officer
by setting aside the 1971 vesting order is in direct contravention
of the statutory command embodied in the WBEA Act, 1953, and
hence wholly void and illegal. [Paras 56-58]
502
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.114 r/w Ord 42 r. 1 - Principles
governing law of review - Scope of Review - Grounds,
explanation:
Held: Scope of review is of a limited and narrow one, unlike the
case of appeal, where the appellate Court could revisit the entire
facts and could re-hear the complete matter on merits - Purpose
of a review is to rectify manifest or exceptional wrongs - It is not
for reappreciating facts or seeking a different conclusion - Review
is essentially to strike a balance between the rule of finality, which
is crucial for maintaining legal certainty and to avoid irremediable
injustice caused by patent mistakes, fraud, failure of natural justice
or similar exceptional situations - Review must be exercised
with great caution and only when the requisite limited criteria are
satisfied, in which the error must be evident and not one which
requires elaborate arguments to discover - Basic legal postulates
of the scope of review in s.114 r/w Ord. XLVII r.1, applied in all
proceedings in which the power of review is exercised, is the
discovery of new and important matter or evidence; mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient
reason - On facts, it cannot be believed that the crucial documents,
relied upon by the respondent-company in the 2008 review, were
not within its possession and knowledge earlier - Respondentcompany failed to produce such documents despite being afforded
several opportunities during the 1971 vesting process - Party
cannot justify a review by producing old documents lying in its own
custody, as this does not constitute "discovery" nor satisfy the "due
diligence" requirement - Furthermore, the 1971 vesting order was
passed after issuing proper notice, granting multiple adjournments
on the request of the respondent-company, conducting a full
hearing, and recording the respondent-company's categorical
statement that it had "nothing further to produce" - Findings were
based on the respondent-company's failure to prove exclusive
engagement in farming, which is the statutory requirement
u/s.6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act - No patent error, self-contradiction,
or legal misconception visible on the face of the record - Second
condition is also not met - Also there exists no such "sufficient
reason" within the meaning of r.1 Ord. XLVII - In view thereof, it
is evident that the respondent-company failed to satisfy any of the
conditions for review as also contemplated u/Ord. XLVII, r.1 CPC.
[Paras 60-62, 76-78, 81]
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
503
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
Case Law Cited
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.
[2010] 10 SCR 971 : (2010) 9 SCC 437; Kiran Singh & Ors. v.
Chaman Paswan & Ors. [1955] 1 SCR 117 : (1954) 1 SCC 710;
Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu & Anr. [1966] 1 SCR
461 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 145; Assistant Custodian E.P. & Ors. v.
Brij Kishore Agarwala & Ors. [1975] 2 SCR 359 : (1975) 1 SCC
21; Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [2010] 8 SCR
475 : (2010) 11 SCC 159; M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. v. The State of UP [1979] 2 SCR 641 : (1979) 2 SCC 409;
Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors. v. Brijlal
Tibrewal & Ors. [2018] 14 SCR 870 : (2019) 2 SCC 684; Bharat
Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. [2009]
15 SCR 662 : (2010) 1 SCC 234; Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [2011] 6 SCR 443 : AIR 2011 SC 3199;
R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore [1964] 6 SCR 368 : AIR 1964
SC 1823; Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji (1971) 3
SCC 844; Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania
[2010] 10 SCR 971 : (2010) 9 SCC 437; Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai v.
Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar [1965] 2 SCR 328 : AIR 1965 SC
1457; Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan [1979] 1
SCR 891 : (1979) 1 SCC 321; State of Orissa and Others v.
Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement, Cuttack & Others
[1998] Supp. 1 SCR 130 : (1998) 7 SCC 162; Harbhajan Singh v.
Karam Singh [1966] 1 SCR 817 : AIR 1966 SC 641; Kuntesh Gupta
(Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya [1988] 1 SCR 387 : (1987) 4
SCC 525; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] Supp.
1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
[1981] 1 SCR 206 : (1980) 3 SCC 625; I.R. Coelho v. State of
T.N [2007] 1 SCR 706 : (2007) 2 SCC 1; S.P. Sampath Kumar v.
Union of India [1987] 1 SCR 435 : (1987) 1 SCC 124; R.K. Jain v.
Union of India [1993] 3 SCR 802 : (1993) 4 SCC 119; L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India and Others [1997] 2 SCR 1186 : (1997) 3
SCC 261; Union of India v. Madras Bar Assn. [2010] 6 SCR 857 :
(2010) 11 SCC 1; Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and
Another [2015] 6 SCR 638 : (2015) 8 SCC 583; M/s. Northern
India Caterers Limited v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi [1979] 1
SCR 557 : (1980) 2 SCC 167; Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib
[1975] 3 SCR 933 : (1975) 1 SCC 674; Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [1964] 5 SCR 174 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC
94; State (NCT of Delhi) v. K. L. Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024] 5 SCR
949 : (2024) 7 SCC 315; Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. H. Mehta [1971]
504
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3 SCR 748 : (1971) 3 SCC 189; Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb
[1999] 2 SCR 1189 : (1999) 4 SCC 396; Hira Lal Patni v. Kali
Nath [1962] 2 SCR 747 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 42; Balvant N.
Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 519 :
(2004) 8 SCC 706 - referred to.
Satyanarayan Banerjee v. Charge Officer and A.S.O. Birbhum,
1974 SCC OnLine Cal 1 - referred to.
Ramaprasanna Roy v. State of West Bengal, 1987 SCC OnLine
Cal 228 - approved.
Books and Periodicals Cited
The Spirit of the Laws (1748) by Montesquieu - referred to.
List of Acts
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953; West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act,
1908; West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules, 1954.
List of Keywords
Power of review; Quasi-judicial bodies; Amicable settlement;
Review of earlier order; Scope of review in s.114 r/w with r.1 of
Ord. XLVII CPC; Agricultural farming; Allowing Revenue Officer to
Review of its own order.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7407 of
2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2012 of the High Court
at Calcutta in WPLRT No. 43 of 2010
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Parag
Chaturvedi.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Gaurav Mitra, Anand Shankar Jha, Ms. Meenakshi Devgan, Parvez
Rahman.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
505
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1.
The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the State of West
Bengal and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants"), being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2012,
passed in WPLRT No. 43 of 2010 by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment, allowed the writ petition preferred by Jai Hind Private
Limited, the respondent-company herein, and set aside the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms
and Tenancy Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short), thereby allowing the
respondent-company to retain 211.21 acres of land.
2.
By the said judgment, the High Court also upheld the review order
dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms
Officer (hereinafter referred to as "B.L. & L.R.O."), Bharatpur-II,
Murshidabad, West Bengal, as well as the Government Order dated
26.02.2008 issued by the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms
Department, Government of West Bengal. Consequently, the High
Court directed the concerned authorities, including the Revenue Officer
to accept land revenue and cess from the respondent-company in
respect of 211.21 acres of land which it had been permitted to be
retained pursuant to the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the B.L.
& L.R.O., Bharatpur-II, Murshidabad under Sections 6(1)(j), 6(1)(a)
and 6(1)(e) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 ("the
WBEA Act, 1953", for short) and Section 14Q(1) of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act, 1955 ("the WBLR Act, 1955" for short).
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.
The dispute has arisen from the respondent-company's claim to
retain certain lands under the provisions of the WBEA Act, 1953,
which was allowed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The
facts in brief essential for adjudication of the present appeal are that
the respondent-company, incorporated in the year 1946 under the
506
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, had 23 shareholders
as on 01.01.1952. It had purchased about 205.57 acres of agricultural
land in its own name prior to 01.01.1952 and, subsequent to the
aforementioned date, purchased an additional 34.14 acres of land,
including agricultural land, homestead, ponds, etc.
4.
The WBEA Act, 1953, enacted by the State of West Bengal, which
came into effect from 12.02.1954, allowed the State to acquire the
estates, the rights of intermediaries therein and certain rights of raiyats
and under-raiyats. An intermediary is defined under Section 2(i) of
the aforementioned Act as a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenureholder or any other intermediary above a raiyat or a non-agricultural
tenant and includes a service tenure-holder and, in relation to mines
and minerals, includes a lessee and a sub-lessee. Under Section 4 of
the said Act, the State Government may, by notification, declare that
all estates and the rights of intermediaries in such estates situated
in any district or part of a district as specified in the notification, shall
vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Further, Section 5 of
the WBEA Act, 1953, provides for the effect of such notification.
5.
However, Section 6 (1) of the WBEA Act, 1953 preserves to
intermediaries a limited right to retain certain categories of land, inter
alia, (a) homestead land; (b) land comprised in or appertaining to
buildings and structures owned by intermediary or by any person,
not being a tenant, holding under him by leave or license; (c) nonagricultural land in khas possession up to certain area; (d) agricultural
land in khas possession, not exceeding 25 acres in area; (e) tank
fisheries, etc. Importantly, Section 6 (1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953
which assumes utmost relevance in the present case, permits a
cooperative society registered or deemed to have been registered
under the Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 1940 or a company
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and engaged
exclusively in farming to retain agricultural land that was in its khas
possession on 01.01.1952 and chosen for retention.
6.
Rule 4A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Rules, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as "the WBEA Rules, 1954") framed under the WBEA
Act, 1953, provides the procedure under which an intermediary
entitled to retain the land under Section 6 (1) of the 1953 Act, can
apply to the concerned authority i.e., Settlement Officer or Revenue
Officer authorised by the Settlement Officer in this behalf before the
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
507
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
expiry of 30.04.1958, a statement in writing in Form 'B' appended
to Schedule 'B' appended to these Rules.
7.
In exercise of this right conferred under Section 6(1)(j) of the 1953
Act, after the State Government issued the notification under Section
4 of the WBEA Act, 1953, as claimed by the respondent-company, it
submitted the duly filed Form 'B' on 14.08.1956 claiming entitlement
to retain the entire extent of land measuring about 239.71 acres
under Section 6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953 on the ground that
the respondent-company was engaged exclusively in farming,
which according to the respondent-company was permitted by the
concerned Revenue Officer. However, according to the appellants,
the respondent-company failed to produce any copy of the alleged
order of retention said to have been passed by the Revenue Officer,
at any stage in any of the proceedings before the High Court, or prior
to it. It may also be noted that the High Court also did not accept
the existence of any such order passed by the Revenue Officer in
1956 in favour of the respondent-company.
8.
Be that as it may, the genesis of the legal proceedings with which
we are directly concerned with is the issuance of the notice dated
01.04.1968 by the Revenue Officer to the respondent-company under
Section 57 of the WBEA Act, 1953, requiring the respondent-company
to file the return in Form 'B', so as to determine the extent of the
land which the respondent-company was entitled to retain out of the
area vested in the State. The aforesaid notice was challenged by the
respondent-company before the High Court by filing a writ petition,
being CR No. 4256 (W) of 1968. The said writ petition was disposed of
by the High Court on 15.02.1971, holding inter alia that the impugned
notice dated 01.04.1968 was merely a notice for adjudication and
for ascertaining as to what extent the respondent-company would
be entitled to retain lands in its possession and that there can be
no ground of apprehension on the part of the respondent-company
that its right/claim for retention has been overruled by such a notice.
9.
After disposal of the aforementioned writ petition, the concerned
Revenue Officer, in continuation of the earlier notice dated 01.04.1968,
issued a second notice dated 04.08.1971 requiring the respondentcompany to appear for a hearing to determine its entitlement under
Section 6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953. In the said proceedings, being
No. 1/1971, the Revenue Officer passed an order on 07.10.1971
holding inter alia that the respondent-company failed to produce
508
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
any evidence to prove that the company was created exclusively for
agricultural purpose or for carrying on business connected directly
with agricultural farming, and accordingly it is not entitled to get the
benefit under Section 6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953.
10. The aforementioned order of the Revenue Officer was challenged
by the respondent-company before the High Court by filing a writ
petition bearing C.R. No. 3266 (W) of 1971, in which a Civil Rule
was issued, and an order directing maintenance of status quo was
passed on 02.11.1971. However, by a subsequent order dated
03.12.1971, the High Court declined to extend the status quo order,
holding that the order of the Revenue Officer was prima facie legal.
Thereafter, the respondent-company challenged the High Court's
order dated 03.12.1971 declining to extend the status quo order by
filing an appeal bearing FMAT No. 3241 of 1971 (later re-numbered
as FMA 686 of 1971). In the said appeal, a Division Bench of the High
Court passed an order dated 14.12.1971 directing the maintenance
of the status quo.
11. Subsequently, the Civil Rule issued in the main writ petition, being
C.R. No. 3266 (W) of 1971, wherein the order of the Revenue Officer
was challenged, was discharged by the High Court, on 23.09.1975,
due to non-appearance by the respondent-company.
12. Later, the respondent-company filed a separate application seeking
restoration of the main writ petition, C.R. No. 3266 (W) of 1971,
which was dismissed for default on 23.09.1975. The said restoration
application, however, was rejected by the High Court on 11.03.1987
on the ground of inordinate delay of nearly twelve years. Against
the said dismissal of the restoration application, the respondentcompany filed an appeal, FMAT No. 791 of 1987, which also came
to be dismissed for default by the High Court on 07.02.2002.
13. Consequently, the order of the Revenue Officer dated 07.10.1971,
whereby the respondent-company was denied the benefit under
Section 6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953, attained finality, and the
respondent-company's judicial challenge to the said order stood
concluded. Accordingly, the respondent-company stood divested
of the agricultural land held by it, the same having vested in the
State Government under Sections 4 and 5 of the WBEA Act, 1953.
Therefore, the respondent-company ceased to have any right, title,
or interest over the said agricultural land.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
509
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
14. After the dismissal of the writ petition, CR No. 3266(W) of 1971 on
23.09.1975, the Revenue Officer, Salar, District Murshidabad, West
Bengal issued another notice on 02.02.1996 to the respondentcompany under Sections 57 and 14T(3) of the WBLR Act, 1955, on
the ground that the quantum of the land held by the respondentcompany was beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under the WBLR Act,
1955. It is to be noted that the aforesaid proceeding initiated under
the WBLR Act, 1955 were entirely separate and distinct from the
earlier proceeding under the WBEA Act, 1953, which had culminated
in 1975 upon dismissal of the writ petition on 23.09.1975 filed by the
respondent-company. The aforementioned notice under the WBLR
Act, 1955, was in respect of the land which was allowed to be retained
under the WBEA Act, 1953, but was found to be in excess of the
ceiling limit placed by the WBLR Act, 1955. This notice, challenged
by the respondent-company vide a writ petition being C.O. No. 3569
(W) of 1996, was transferred to the Tribunal and re-numbered as
T.A. No. 1410 of 2000. The Tribunal, by its order dated 09.04.2001,
dismissed the T.A. No. 1410 of 2000, reasoning that the Revenue
Officer has jurisdiction under Section 14T(3) of the WBLR Act, 1955,
to initiate proceedings and determine the ceiling area.
15. Assailing the abovementioned dismissal order of the Tribunal, the
respondent-company preferred a writ petition, WPLRT No. 763 of
2001, before the High Court. The same was admitted and remained
pending until 2008. Subsequently, it was ultimately withdrawn by the
respondent-company in 2009, after it was permitted to retain about
211.21 acres of land pursuant to a review order dated 07.05.2008,
and the said writ petition was accordingly disposed of by the High
Court as withdrawn.
16. What is of great importance is what had transpired during the
pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, on the basis of which the
said writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, as the same would
have a direct bearing on the decision in this appeal.
17. During the pendency of the above-mentioned writ petition, WPLRT No.
763 of 2001 before the High Court, it appears that the respondentcompany submitted a proposal to Chief Minister of the State of the
West Bengal, seeking an amicable settlement of the vested land in its
favour, for setting up an eco-friendly agro-based industry, and sought
review of the order dated 07.10.1971, passed by the concerned
510
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Revenue Officer. Consequently, as claimed by the respondentcompany, the then Minister-in-Charge made a note on the file as
"Please discuss". The erstwhile Minister-in-Charge then recorded
the following comments on the file: "Discussed. This will be possible
only when the company first withdraws all the cases". Accordingly,
the respondent-company submitted an affidavit on 22.02.2008 to
withdraw all pending court cases, including the aforementioned writ
petition, WPLRT No. 763 of 2001, pending before the High Court.
18. Acting on the aforesaid proposal of the respondent-company which
was apparently accepted by the State government, the Land Reforms
Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary on 26.02.2008, directed
the concerned Revenue Officer, Bharatpur -II, Murshidabad, West
Bengal, to take necessary steps for review of the proceeding No.
1 of 1971 under Sections 6(1)(j), 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the WBEA
Act, 1953. The aforementioned government order dated 26.02.2008,
being relevant, is reproduced in toto as follows:
"The Government of West Bengal
Land 85 Land Reform Department
Land Reforms Branch
Writers Buildings, Kolkata - 700001.
No. 984 - L.R. GE (M)
Dated 26.02.08
IL - 240/07 - LR...
Whereas 'M/s. Jai Hind Private Limited a company
incorporated in the year 1946 under the Indian Companies
Act, 1913 purchased more or less 234.00 acres of land in
Block Bharatpur-II in the district of Murshidabad as revealed
from the memo no. 174/2709/C/2007 dtd. 30.8.07 of the
DLRS and Jt. LRC, West Bengal;
And whereas the said company purchased the aforesaid
234 acres of land before and after the date 01.01.1952
and that it had 23 members/shareholders as on 01.01.1952
and that the said company has produced the Panchayat
certificate and panchayat Tax receipt (for the year 200607) in support of its claim of possession on 200 acres
of land as on 19.02.2007, as revealed from the memo
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
511
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
no. 3362/X-6A/C/01 dated 22.6.2007 of the DL&LRO -
Murshidabad.
And whereas a proceeding bearing no. 1 of 1971 u/s 6 (1)
(J) of the WBEA Act, 1953 was drawn up and disposed of
with vesting of 205.44 acres of land of the said company
by the BL&LRO, Bharatpur-II in the year 1971 vide order
dtd: 07.10.1971;
And whereas the said land could not be distributed till
now due to series of court cases and compensation was
also not paid to the said company. The said company
is still in possession of the said land and claims that
proper opportunity of being heard was not given during
the said proceeding as revealed from the memo no.
174/2709/C/2007 dtd : 30.8.07 of the DLRS and Jt. LRC,
West Bengal;
And whereas the said company wants to establish ecofriendly agro-based Industry on the said land to produce
'Mentha Oil' and 'Mentha crystals' and 'Mentha Arvensis'
plants. 'Metha oil' is also known as 'Peppermint Oil' and
this cash-rich cultivation is being done for the first time
in West Bengal. This is really a good innovation in West
Bengal which cultivators may like to follow. There is a
possibility of employment generation for nearly 500 people
in the said project;
And whereas said company's project has already been
approved by The Small Industry Services Institute' under
the Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Govt. of India
vide report dtd. 6.6.2007. The Deptt. of Food Processing
Industries & Horticulture', Govt. of West Bengal has also
requested for the clearance of the said company's land
within the provision of law vide their memo no. 568/FPI &
H/0-1/580 dtd. 19.9.2007. The District Industries CentreMurshidabad' has also approved the aforesaid project vide
their memo no. 356/1 (1) dtd. 15.6.2007. The Principal
Agricultural Officer-Murshidabad' has also inspected the
Trial cultivation of 'Menthal Arvensis' plants on the said
land by the said company and found it to be very vigorous
and satisfactory as certified vide his memo no. 245/Dev
dtd. 28.2.07;
512
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
And whereas the 'Local Gram Panchayat' has already
issued 'no objection certificate in favour of the said company
vide their letter dated 25.4.2007 recommending that the
experimental plant set up so far to extract Mentha oil/
peppermint oil is successful in the area and is accepted
by the local people. It is 'eco friendly' also;
And whereas the said company has already submitted
before the undersigned an undertaking to withdraw all the
pending court case (s) by way of Affidavit dated 22.2.2008.
as applicable for the withdrawal of all the pending court
cases and this may be used by L.R. officials at the relevant
forum of the court;
And whereas the said company has submitted an
undertaking by way of Affidavit dtd. 22.2.2008 to the effect
that as on 1st January 1952 neither the company nor any of
its 23 members/shareholder had owned any other landed
property in West Bengal except the aforesaid agricultural
land and that the company has all along been engaged
exclusively in agriculture farming on its aforesaid land;
And whereas the State Govt. after due consideration has
taken the decision to Review Afresh the said proceeding
bearing no. 1 of 1971 u/s 6 (1)(J) of the WBEA Act 1953
as per the applicable provisions of the WBEA Act 1953;
Now, therefore the BL&LRO, Bharatpur-II block in the
district of Murshidabad is hereby directed to take necessary
steps for fresh Review of the said proceeding for more or
less 205.57 acres of land which were purchased by the
said company before 1st January 1952 as well as more or
less 0.29 acres of homestead and also more or less 8.52
acres of pond (s) etc. for consideration for exemption u/s
6 (1) (J) read with Section 6 (1) (a) and sec. 6 (1) (e) of
the WBEA Act 1953. However, an area of more or less
19.62 acres, which were purchased by the said company
after 1.1.1952 and which do not come under the purview
of the said section of the aforesaid Act will be vested to
the State. The company may be given the opportunity to
exercise the option to earmark this more or less 19.62 acres
of land on any side of the total land and then this more
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
513
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.
or less 19.62 acres of land may be distributed amongst
the eligible landless persons of the area as per norms.
Sd/
(Dr. P. K. Agarwal)
L.R.C. & Principal Secretary,
Land & Land Reforms Deptt.,
Govt. of West Bengal"
19. In compliance with the above-mentioned order, the B.L. & L.R.O.
(Revenue Officer), by his final order dated 07.05.2008, allowed the
review and set aside the earlier order dated 07.10.1971 passed
by the earlier Revenue Officer, thereby allowing the respondentcompany to retain a total of about 211.21 acres of land and vesting
nearly 28.50 acres in the State. In furtherance of the review order,
the respondent-company furnished a cheque to the Revenue Officer
towards payment of land revenue, which was eventually returned
by the Revenue Officer. Aggrieved by the non-acceptance of the
land revenue, the respondent-company filed an application, being
OA No. 1463 of 2009, before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the
concerned authorities to accept the said land revenue and provide the
certified copies of the record of rights. The Tribunal, by its judgment
dated 31.03.2010, dismissed the respondent-company's application
and quashed the review order dated 07.05.2008 by holding that the
concerned Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review
proceedings as no such power of review was specifically given.
20. Assailing the said judgment of the Tribunal, the respondent-company
filed a writ petition, being WPLRT No. 43 of 2010, before the High
Court.