STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus KARAN SINGH BINAYAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 20-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
KARAN SINGH BINA YAK AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 
Section 6(J)(b)-Certain lands-Retention of-Right of intermediary-
Khas possession-Held: If building and structure is not owned by the 
intermediary he will not be entitled to retain land appurtenant thereto-But 
if it is owned by the intermediary, even though tenanted, he would be entitled 
D to retain land appurtenant thereto-Khas possession is not required for 
applicability of S.6(J)(b). 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 151--'--lnherent powers-Invoking of-Principles-Held: Inherent 
E powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters-Such powers cannot be 
resorted to when specific provisions exist in a statute to deal with the situation. 
The erstwhile owners of the land in dispute granted in favour of a paper 
mill a lease for a period of 25 years. The record-of-rights with respect to the 
land in dispute was prepared under Section 44 of the West Bengal Estates 
p Acquisition Act, 1953 in 1957 whereby the land in question was held to be 
retainable by the erstwhile powers under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. 
G 
H 
Subsequently, the paper mill went into liquidation and the possession 
o~ the disputed land was handed over to the erstwhile owners. The erstwhile 
owners sold the parcels of the said land to the respondents. 
The respondents commenced construction on the land after sanction of 
the plans by the Municipality. However, the District Magistrate directed the 
respondents to suspend all the constructions and not to give effect to the 
sanctioned plan. But the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the 
respondents and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate. 
620 
STA TE v. KARAN SINGH BINA YAK 
621 
Thereafter, the appellants commenced proceedings under Section 57- A 
A of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for 
rectification of the record-of-rights finally published under Section 44 of the 
Act in 1957 on the ground that it was quite anomalous, defective and that it 
did not reflect the actual picture. The appellants held that the rights and 
interests in respect of the leased-out land in question vested in the State B 
absolutely under the provisions of the Act and the record-of-rights be 
corrected accordingly under Section 47 of the Act. However, the High Court 
held that Section 6(l)(b) of the Act was applicable to the case of the 
respondents and they, under the said Section, were entitled to retain the land 
in question and, therefore, the land did not vest in the State Government under 
Section 4(1) <if the Act. Hence this appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the land in question 
being tenanted the respondents were not entitled to retain it under Section 
6(l)(b); that the present case was governed by Section 6(l)(g) of the Act as 
the land in question was comprised in a mill; and that the khas/actual 
possession as against the possession of the tenant was necessary for the D 
applicability of Section 6(l)(b). 
The foUowing question arose before the Court:-
Whether to retain the land comprised in or appertaining to buildings E 
and structures owned by the intermediary, is it the requirement of Section 
6(l)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 that the intermediary 
should be in khas/actual possession of such land and if he is not in such 
possession, actual possession being of a tenant, would he not be entitled to 
retain tile possession? 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. These powers 
cannot be resorted to when there are specific provisions in a statute to deal 
with the situation. It would be an abuse to allow the reopening of the settled G 
matters after nearly four decades in the purported exercise of inherent powers. 
It has not even been suggested that there was any collusion or fraud on behalf 
of the writ petitioners or the erstwhile owners. There is no explanation, much 
less satisfactory explanation, for total inaction on the part of the appellants 
for all these years. [633-F] 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. It cannot be said that Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates 
Acquisition Act, 1953 would not apply to a composite lease of lands and th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.