State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd.

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 determination of 1971, rightly appreciated the statutory scheme of the WBEA Act, and well-settled principles governing the limits of quasi-judicial power – Conclusion of the tribunal that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen by way of review of a concluded vesting order is consistent with both legislative intent and binding precedents – High Court, however, fell into error in reversing the tribunal’s decision – It incorrectly proceeded on the premise that the Government Order issued u/s.57A, having been approved by the Minister-in-Charge, constituted sufficient authority to confer review jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officer – This approach conflated executive direction with statutory conferment of substantive power and treated review as a mere procedural incident of Civil Court powers – High Court also overlooked the limits on vesting the judicial function of review power in executive authorities – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of the tribunal restored, and the review order passed by the Revenue Officer quashed – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 to continue to operate in accordance with the law. [Paras 75-94] Review – Power of – Exercise of power by quasi-judicial authorities, when – Power of the Revenue Officer to review its earlier order by relying on s.57A of the WBEA Act, 1953 – Permissibility:

Held: Power of review is not an inherent power of the Court – Quasi-judicial authorities can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon them by the statute – Unless a specific provision has been made in the WBEA Act of 1953, investing the power of review in the Revenue Officer or such other authorities mentioned u/s.53, these authorities could not have possessed the power or authority to review an earlier order – Omnibus expression used in the State notification dated 09.01.1958 investing all the Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers and Revenue Officers with all the powers of the Civil Court, does not amount to conferment of power of review as well to these Authorities – s.57A of the WBEA Act cannot be construed to include vesting of power of review in the absence of a clear statutory provision to such quasi-judicial authority manned by an executive functionary like the Revenue Officer, bereft of any judicial training or judicial qualification – Further, the legislature did not intend to confer the power of review to the authorities provided under the said Act is evident from the proviso to sub-section (3) of s.57B 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 – 1971 vesting order passed by the Revenue Officer after full inquiry and adjudication, constitutes such a determination which also attained finality – Revenue Officer thus stood barred from re-opening, revisiting, or redeciding its earlier vesting order in view of the said proviso – Thus, the scheme of the WBEA Act, 1953 does not contemplate any executive authority reopening a vesting determination or substituting a decision already rendered after due inquiry – Authorities enumerated u/s.53 of the WBEA Act, 1953, such as Revenue Officers, Settlement Officers and Compensation Officers, among others, are vested only with such limited adjudicatory powers as the statute expressly confers upon them. [Paras 31, 34, 49-52]

West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – s.6(1)(j) – Benefit under, claim – Whether the respondent-company had fulfilled the conditions to be entitled to retain the subject lands in u/s.6(1)(j) – Whether it was “exclusively engaged in agricultural farming” as on 1st January 1952 to claim exemption from vesting under the 1971 determination:

Held: To get the benefit contemplated u/s.6(1)(j) a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 must establish that it was engaged exclusively in farming (and in business, if any, connected directly with such farming); and that it was so engaged as on 1st January 1952 – On facts, the respondent company even after being given sufficient opportunities, failed to discharge its onus of proving the first condition before the vesting authority (Revenue Officer) in the earlier proceedings in 1971 u/s.6(1)(j) – Careful examination of the 1971 vesting order reveals that, although the respondent-company sought to rely on its MOA to demonstrate that it was engaged in agricultural activities, Revenue Officer rightly declined to treat these clauses as conclusive proof of “exclusive” engagement in farming – 1971 vesting order does not suffer from any legal flaw, and it correctly concluded that the respondent-company failed to prove the statutory precondition of s.6(1)(j), despite being given sufficient time – Finding by the Revenue Officer that in spite of several opportunities granted, the respondent-company could not prove the essential statutory requirement was inevitable and unimpeachable, and the vesting of the land in the State had to follow as a natural consequence – Nothing brought to the notice by the respondent-company of the existence of sufficient material evidence to establish the fact that it was exclusively engaged in farming as on 01.01.1952 – Also the documents submitted by the respondent company do not support the claim of the respondent company that it is exclusively engaged in agricultural activities as on 01.01.1952, as either these came into existence long after the vesting order dated 07.10.1971 culminated or were not produced timely by the respondent-company before the Revenue Officer at the time of the 1971 vesting proceedings, despite multiple opportunities being granted – Thus, these documents cannot furnish a basis for the review of the 1971 vesting determination, especially in the absence of any statutory provision allowing the same – Belated reliance on such material, after a lapse of nearly four decades, cannot constitute a legally sustainable ground for reopening a concluded vesting determination by a Revenue Officer – Thus, the respondent not entitled to retain the lands u/s.6(1)(j), as it could not prove its claim that it was “exclusively engaged in agricultural farming” as on 01.01.1952 – 1971 vesting order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. [Paras 64-73]

Review – Allowing Revenue Officer to Review of its own concluded quasi-judicial order – Effect:

Held: 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 – Further, 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 construction would, be inconsistent with legislative intent and would impermissibly encroach upon the basic structure of the Constitution – Thus, on facts, the fresh order of review dated 07.05.2008 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. [Paras 56-58]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 r/w Ord 42 r. 1 – Principles governing law of review – Scope of Review – Grounds, explanation:

Held: Scope of review is of a limited and narrow one, unlike the case of appeal, where the appellate Court could revisit the entire facts and could re-hear the complete matter on merits – Purpose of a review is to rectify manifest or exceptional wrongs – It is not for reappreciating facts or seeking a different conclusion – Review is essentially to strike a balance between the rule of finality, which is crucial for maintaining legal certainty and to avoid irremediable injustice caused by patent mistakes, fraud, failure of natural justice or similar exceptional situations – Review must be exercised with great caution and only when the requisite limited criteria are satisfied, in which the error must be evident and not one which requires elaborate arguments to discover – Basic legal postulates of the scope of review in s.114 r/w Ord. XLVII r.1, applied in all proceedings in which the power of review is exercised, is the discovery of new and important matter or evidence; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason – On facts, it cannot be believed that the crucial documents, relied upon by the respondent-company in the 2008 review, were not within its possession and knowledge earlier – Respondentcompany failed to produce such documents despite being afforded several opportunities during the 1971 vesting process – Party cannot justify a review by producing old documents lying in its own custody, as this does not constitute “discovery” nor satisfy the “due diligence” requirement – Furthermore, the 1971 vesting order was passed after issuing proper notice, granting multiple adjournments on the request of the respondent-company, conducting a full hearing, and recording the respondent-company’s categorical statement that it had “nothing further to produce” – Findings were based on the respondent-company’s failure to prove exclusive engagement in farming, which is the statutory requirement u/s.6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act – No patent error, self-contradiction, or legal misconception visible on the face of the record – Second condition is also not met – Also there exists no such “sufficient reason” within the meaning of r.1 Ord. XLVII – In view thereof, it is evident that the respondent-company failed to satisfy any of the conditions for review as also contemplated u/Ord. XLVII, r.1 CPC. [Paras 60-62, 76-78, 81]