1. A company claimed entitlement to retain agricultural land after vesting, later seeking review of a final vesting order decades afterward based on an amicable settlement with state authorities. (Para 1 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 144
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2012
Decided On : 06-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Mranal Prajapati, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Mranal Prajapati, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR
The Revenue Officer of the State lacks the statutory authority to review vested land orders under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act without explicit legislative provision, affirming separation of powers and judicial independence.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - Sections 4, 5, 6(1)(j), 57A, and 57B - Review of vesting order - Revenue Officer lacks jurisdiction to review its own prior decisions; review not statutorily conferred and cannot be presumed from broad powers of civil courts - Vesting order of 1971 valid; claimed entitlement under WBEA not established by respondent. (Paras 91-94)
(B) Jurisdiction - Review powers of quasi-judicial authorities - No inherent power of review unless expressly provided by statute; prior determinations cannot be reopened without statutory basis. (Paras 30-32)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sought to retain agricultural land under WBEA after an earlier vesting order in favor of the State. The High Court overturned the Tribunal's decision affirming the vesting as the State purportedly accepted an amicable settlement to review the earlier determination.
Findings of Court:
The Revenue Officer’s review of the 1971 vesting order was invalid due to the absence of jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Officer had the power to review its earlier order; the ability of the respondent to prove entitlement to retain land under Section 6(1)(j).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that quasi-judicial authorities must operate within clearly defined statutory limits, and any attempt to review prior decisions without legislative authority is void.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside, Tribunal’s decision restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. The state contested the review order as lacking statutory jurisdiction and finality, while the respondent contended the order was valid under an amicable settlement and inherent statutory procedural powers. (Para 21 , 22 )
3. The court found no statutory power of review for the executive authority, emphasizing separation of powers and the requirement for express legislative grants to exercise quasi-judicial review functions. (Para 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 56 , 57 , 93 )
4. Quasi-judicial authorities under the Act possess no inherent power of review; such power must be expressly conferred by statute, and executive policy cannot override concluded statutory vesting determinations. (Para 31 , 33 , 52 , 58 , 81 , 91 )
5. The appeal is allowed, the high court judgment is set aside, the tribunal order is restored, and the review order dated 07.05.2008 is quashed as void ab initio. (Para 94 )
6. Does a Revenue Officer exercising quasi-judicial powers under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, possess an inherent power to review their previous orders?
No. Quasi-judicial authorities can only exercise powers expressly conferred by statute. The Act contains no provision granting Revenue Officers the power of review, and such power is not inherent in their limited administrative or quasi-judicial functions. (Para 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 52 )
7. Does a state government order providing for an amicable settlement override the finality of a previous statutory vesting order?
No. A government order cannot override statutory commands or vest jurisdictional powers in an official that the law does not provide. Finalized vesting orders cannot be reopened through administrative policy-based settlements after the statutory finality has been achieved. (Para 83 , 86 , 87 , 91 )
8. Can a jurisdictional defect in an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority be challenged at any stage of proceedings?
Yes. An order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is void ab initio and a nullity. Its invalidity strikes at the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage, including in subsequent collateral proceedings or execution. (Para 88 , 89 )
9. Do the provisions of Section 57A of the WBEA Act authorizing the grant of Civil Court powers extend to the power of review?
No. Investing an officer with powers of a Civil Court does not automatically include the power of review, which must be specifically granted. Executive authorities exercising limited quasi-judicial powers under the Act remain distinct from regular Courts of law. (Para 29 , 34 , 49 , 50 )
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others (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 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-tenure-holder 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) non-agricultural 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 fa
