LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus JAI HIND PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 respondent- company 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 d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.