INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that Quasi-Judicial Bodies like Revenue Officers under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (WBEA Act) lack the inherent power to review their own decisions unless explicitly empowered by statute. In the recent case of the Supreme Court of the State of West Bengal and others v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd, the bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on 6 February 2026 overturned the judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court that upheld the 7 May 2008 review order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and the 26 February 2008 Government Order which allowed the private company to retain over 211.21 acres of agricultural land that was previously vested with the State.
BACKGROUND
Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd, the respondent company, purchased about 205.57 acres of agricultural land and 34.14 acres of land, including agricultural land, homestead, ponds, etc., in its own name in 1952. The WEBA Act of 1953 came into effect in 1954 and allowed the State to acquire the estates, the rights of intermediaries, raiyats and under-raiyats. In exercise of right conferred under Section 6(1)(j) of the said act that allowed limited retention of land for companies “engaged exclusively in farming”, the company claimed entitlement to retain the entire extent of land measuring about 239.71 acres on the ground that it was engaged exclusively in farming, which according to the company, was permitted by the concerned Revenue Officer. However, according to the Appellants, the company failed to produce any copy of the alleged order of retention. In 1968, the Revenue Officer issued a notice to the company, requiring the company to file the return in Form ‘B’, to determine the extent of the land that was entitled to retain out of the area. The aforesaid notice was challenged by the company before the High Court. The petition was disposed of by the High Court, holding that the impugned notice was merely a notice for adjudication and for ascertaining the extent to which the company would be entitled to retain lands in its possession and that there can be no ground of apprehension on the part of the company that its right for retention has been overruled by such a notice. In a subsequent meeting with the Revenue Officer, requiring the company to appear for a hearing to determine its entitlement, the Officer passed an order stating that the company failed to produce any evidence to prove that the company was created exclusively for agricultural purposes or for carrying on business connected directly with agricultural farming. Hence, it is not entitled to get the benefits. The order of the Revenue Officer was challenged before the High Court, in which a Civil Rule was issued, and an order directing maintenance of the status quo was passed. However, by a subsequent order, the High Court declined to extend the status quo order, holding that the order of the Revenue Officer was prima facie legal. The legal battle of filing petitions and challenging orders continued, and the order of the Revenue Officer of 1971, wherein the company was denied the benefit, attained finality, and the company’s judicial challenge to the said order stood concluded. The company therefore ceased to have any right, title, or interest over the said agricultural land.
A separate ceiling proceeding under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (WBLR Act), initiated in 1996, was dismissed by the Tribunal in 2001, with the writ against it pending until 2009. In 2007-2008, Jai Hind proposed an amicable settlement to the Chief Minister, offering to establish an eco-friendly agro-based industry for mentha oil production, promising 500 jobs. The state, through a government order, directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to review the 1971 order. The officer allowed retention of 211.21 acres, vesting only 28.50 acres in the state. The company thereafter withdrew its writ and surrendered the excess land. However, the Tribunal quashed the review, holding that the officer lacked review jurisdiction. Jai Hind filed a petition before the High Court, which was allowed and directed the acceptance of land revenue for the retained land. The Appellants approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta on 17 May 2012.
KEY POINTS
- One of the issues raised before the Supreme Court, marking the significance and importance of the present case, was “Whether the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act of 1953 confers any power of review on the Revenue Officer.”
- The Court, while dealing with the issue, stated that as the personnel appointed to hold offices under the State are called upon to discharge judicial or quasi-judicial powers, they must have a judicial approach and also knowledge and expertise in that particular branch of constitutional, administrative and tax laws. It was stated that it is necessary that those who adjudicate upon these matters should have legal expertise, judicial experience and a modicum of legal training.
- It was held that allowing executive authorities exercising quasi-judicial power, which draw their limited powers from the statutes, to review their earlier orders on merit, it will tantamount to converting Tribunals to regular Courts which eventually will undermine the independence of the judiciary, ultimately affecting the justice delivery system and be contrary to the principles evolved so far as the functioning of Tribunals is concerned.
- The court analysed that the provision under Section 57A of the WBEA Act, 1953, states that the legislature did not intend to confer the power of review to the authorities provided under the said Act and it is evident from the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 57B of the 1953 Act which provides that in deciding a dispute under this sub-section, the Revenue Officer shall not re-open any matter which has already been enquired into, investigated, determined or decided by the State Government or any authority under any of the provisions of this Act.
- The court held that allowing a Revenue Officer to review its own concluded quasi-judicial order would trench upon the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which constitutes part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Though vested with limited adjudicatory functions, authorities under the WBEA Act, 1953, remain essentially members of the executive branch and are neither part of the judicial organ nor equipped with the institutional safeguards that attend judicial office, such as independence from executive control.
- It was further observed that the power of review is essentially a core judicial function, and conferring such a power upon executive authorities, absent an express legislative mandate, would blur the constitutionally mandated demarcation between the executive and the judiciary, permit the executive authorities to sit in judgment over their own decisions, and erode the rule of law by diluting finality. Any contrary action would, therefore, be inconsistent with legislative intent and would undoubtedly encroach upon the basic structure of the Constitution.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Honourable Supreme Court therefore stated that the fresh order of review dated 07 May 2008 by the Revenue Officer, by setting aside the 1971 vesting order, is in direct contravention of the statutory command embodied in the WBEA Act, 1953, and hence wholly void and illegal.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the Supreme Court, preserving the basic structure of the Constitution, the rule of law and the separation of power clarified the limits of executive interference in quasi-judicial decision-making and brought into light the fact that executive directions of reopening, finally adjudicated matters in the absence of an express statutory power of review, are void.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, Revenue law and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
