The Supreme Court that a quasi-judicial authority, such as a Revenue Officer under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (WBEA Act), does not possess the inherent power to review its own final order. Such a power must be expressly and specifically conferred by the governing statute. The Court explained that a general provision like Section 57A of the WBEA Act, which invests an authority with ‘all the powers of a Civil Court’, cannot be construed to include the substantive judicial power of review, especially for an executive functionary.
Conferring such a power through a broad interpretation would violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution, added the Court, while observing that any order passed in the exercise of such a non-existent power of review is ultra vires, void ab initio, and a nullity.
The Supreme Court held that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer, culminating in the order dated May 07, 2008, was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the vesting order dated October 07, 1971 was held to continue to operate in accordance with the law.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the power of review is not an inherent power for a quasi-judicial authority; it must be explicitly conferred by the statute. The Bench analysed Section 57A of the WBEA Act, under which the State Government had invested Revenue Officers with ‘all the powers of a Civil Court’.
The Bench observed that this general and omnibus conferment of powers does not amount to a specific grant of the substantive power of review. The Bench reasoned that allowing executive authorities, who lack judicial training and independence, to exercise a core judicial function like review would blur the constitutionally mandated separation of powers, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Bench further observed that the legislative intent to not confer such a power is evident from the proviso to Section 57B(3) of the WBEA Act, which explicitly bars a Revenue Officer from reopening any matter that has already been determined or decided by an authority under the Act. The 1971 vesting order, having been passed after a full inquiry and having attained finality through judicial proceedings, was precisely such a determination that could not be reopened.
Even assuming the Revenue Officer had the power of review, the Bench observed that the 2008 review failed to meet the established legal grounds for review as per Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. There was no ‘discovery of new and important matter or evidence’, as the documents relied upon in 2008 were old documents that the company failed to produce during the 1971 proceedings despite being given multiple opportunities.
There was no ‘mistake or error apparent on the face of the record’, as the 1971 order was passed after due process and was based on the company’s failure to discharge its statutory onus. Lastly, there was no ‘other sufficient reason’, as the review was triggered by considerations of economic expediency and a purported ‘amicable settlement’, which are wholly extraneous to the limited jurisdiction of review.
The Bench also noted the extraordinary and unexplained delay of nearly four decades in seeking the review, which was impermissible in law.
Briefly, the respondent, Jai Hind Pvt Ltd., a company incorporated in 1946, purchased approximately 239.71 acres of land in West Bengal before and after 1952. Following the enactment of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (WBEA Act), which allowed the state to acquire estates from intermediaries, the respondent claimed the right to retain its entire landholding under Section 6(1)(j) of the Act. This section permits a company engaged ‘exclusively in farming’ to retain agricultural land held in its khas possession as of 01.01.1952. Although the company claimed to have filed a Form ‘B’ in 1956 and received permission to retain the land, it could not produce any order to this effect.
In 1968, the Revenue Officer initiated proceedings to determine the land retainable by the company. On 07.10.1971, the Revenue Officer passed a vested order holding that the company was not entitled to the benefit under Section 6(1)(j) as it failed to prove it was engaged exclusively in agricultural farming. Consequently, about 205.44 acres of the company’s land vested in the State. The company’s legal challenges to this order were unsuccessful; its writ petition was dismissed for non-appearance in 1975, a restoration application was rejected in 1987 for inordinate delay, and an appeal against that rejection was dismissed in 2002, making the 1971 vesting order final.
Decades later, around 2007-2008, the company proposed an ‘amicable settlement’ to the Chief Minister of West Bengal, seeking a review of the 1971 order to set up an agro-based industry. Based on this proposal and the company’s undertaking to withdraw all pending court cases, the Principal Secretary of the Land and Land Reforms Department issued a Government Order on 26.02.2008, directing the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to conduct a fresh Review of the 1971 proceedings. Subsequently, the B.L. & L.R.O. passed a review order, setting aside the 1971 vesting order and allowing the company to retain 211.21 acres of land.
When the authorities refused to accept land revenue based on this review order, the company approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. On 31.03.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the company’s application and quashed the 2008 review order, holding that the Revenue Officer had no power of review under the WBEA Act. The company challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the 2008 review order.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, AOR Kunal Mimani, along with Advocates Parag Chaturvedi and Mranal Prajapati, for the Appellant
AOR Anand Shankar Jha, for the Respondent
