Court affirmed the principle that unpleaded facts cannot invalidate judgments, stressing the necessity of procedural integrity in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. The judgment dated 18.04.2024 passed in MAT 1095 of 2019 is under review in the instant review application. Learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to paragraph no. 23.1 of the judgment which is quoted herein below:-

“23.1. After going through the above judgment of the Learned Single Judge it appears that basically the Learned Single Judge has directed that demarcation of 3.13 acres of land as discussed in the said judgment should be done subject to the proceedings undertaken under Section 14(T) of the Act, 1955 which has been pending for a long time. By keeping the same pending, the State, in fact, has protracted and delayed the logical conclusion of the instant matter. One must keep in mind that under the Act of 1955, vesting takes place only after the Revenue Officer determines the extent of excess land that is to vest in the State under Section 14S of the Act and then takes possession of such lands. This determination takes place in a proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the Act. That proceeding is still pending as regards the lands involved in the present case.

A private party cannot wait for an indefinite period to get his property or dues in accordance with law. As the State has failed to dispose of the proceeding under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in time, we think there is no illegality by directing the State to demarcate 3.13 acres of land as discussed hereinabove subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 14T of the aforesaid Act. However, there are certain remarks made by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment regarding the pending proceeding under Section 14(T) of the Act, 1955 which should be ignored for the ends of justice.”

2. Learned Advocate General submitted that although the Division Bench had proceeded to dispose of the said appeal on the assumption that the proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was still pending, but, in fact, the said proceedings were completed on 13.08.2019. Mr. Dutta fairly submitted that unfortunately the said factum was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench during hearing of the above appeal from the side of the appellant or by the respondents. However, the observation in the aforesaid judgment that the said proceeding under Section 14T(3) under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was still pending, is an error apparent factually, and hence the instant review application is being moved after filing the prayer for condonation of delay. If the said error is allowed to remain in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench it will cause miscarriage of justice since such observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench was based on certain wrong factual matrix. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta submitted that a clarification is required since by order dated 13.08.2019 of the competent authority, the relevant land measuring about 2.83 acres vested in the State free from all encumbrances and as a result no demarcation is required as per observation of the learned single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal. Mr. Dutta has referred to several judgments in support of his contention. He submitted that in Khoday Distilleries Limited (Now Known as Khoday India Limited) & Ors. Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal (under Liquidation) Represented by the Liquidator, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 376 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that an order refusing special leave to appeal does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order reusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the