Holding

The proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act remains in force post‑1955 Act, retention under Section 6(1)(g) requires a Section 6(3) order, and the writ petition must be filed under Article 226, not Article 32.

Summary

The State of West Bengal appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that had resumed land held by an intermediary under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The appeals raised three questions: (1) whether the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act remains effective after the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (specifically Section 14Z) was given retrospective effect; (2) whether an intermediary can retain land under Section 6(1)(g) of the 1953 Act without a prior order under Section 6(3); and (3) whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is the proper forum. The Court held that the proviso to Section 6(3) was not repealed by the 1955 Act and therefore continues to operate, but it can be exercised only in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or a genuine mistake, not on the basis of events occurring after the original order. Consequently, retention under Section 6(1)(g) is impermissible without a Section 6(3) order. The Court also directed that the writ petition should be filed under Article 226, not Article 32. The appeals and the writ petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

The proviso to Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – does it continue to operate after the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Section 14Z) with retrospective effect?
Is retention of land by an intermediary under Section 6(1)(g) of the 1953 Act permissible without a prior order under Section 6(3)?
Should a challenge to the 1955 Act be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution or under Article 226?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 32
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 24
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953s. 4, s. 5, s. 6(1), s. 6(2), s. 6(3)
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955s. 14Z, s. 59

Subjects

West Bengal Estates Acquisition ActWest Bengal Land Reforms ActSection 6(3) provisoLand retentionZamindari abolitionConstitutional jurisdictionArticle 32Article 226Statutory interpretationLand acquisition

Judgment

-[2009] 2·s.C.R. 982
r
A STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ,,.. ' I
v
RATNAGIRI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. -
~
Civil Appeal No. 369-370 of 2005
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 :

s. 6(3) proviso - Applicability of - After enactment of s. ,>-
.
c 14Z of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Held: Power
under the proviso continues with the State even after
enactment of 1955 Act - 1955 Act does not repeal the proviso
to s. 6(3) - Events subsequent to passing of the order uls. 6(3) f-
cannot be seen for exercising the power un8er the proviso as_
D it will lead to widespread chaos -An interpretation leading to
widespread chaos should be eschewed - Interpretation of \..
statutes.
'l
ss.6(1)(g), 6(3) and its Proviso - Retention of acquired
land by intermediary uls 6(1)(g) ~ Permissibility - Held:
r
~
E Retention under the provision is not permissible unless and
until there is an order passed u/s. 6(3) -On :facts, as no order
passed u/s. 6(3), retention not permissible.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 226 - Writ "'.i }-
~-
jurisdiction - writ petition under Article 32 challenging validity
F of State Act - Held: Petitioner advised to invoke jurisdiction
under Article 226.
,___
The -questions for consideration in the present •,
'
appeals are whether proviso to s. 6 (3) of West Bengal
Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 continues to be in operation
G
after the enactment of s. 14Z of West Bengal Land ..... .
>-

Reforms Act, 1955 which has been given retrospective
operation; and whether the retention of the land uls. 6(1 )(g)
of 1953 Act, by the intermediary was permissible.
H 982 I
i--
I
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 983
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

The writ petition was filed for declaring the A
amendment brought about in the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955 as unconstitutional in so far as they
relate to s. 4 and s. 14Z (1) of the Act.
Disposing of the appeals and dismissing the writ
petition, the Court 8
HELD: 1.1. The power under the proviso to Section
6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953
-.-::.
continues with the State Government even after .the
enactment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 or
~
Section 14Z thereof. There is nothing in the 1955 Act or in c
Section 14Z thereof which states that on its enactment
the power of the State Government under the proviso to
Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act will cease to exist. [Para 17]
[992-F-G]
1.2. Section 59 of the 1955 Act repealed certain earlier D
1 Acts and Regulations in Bengal. 1955 Act specifically
mentions which earlier Acts it intends to repeal. There is
no provision in the 1955 Act which repeals the proviso to
Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act. Nor can such a repeal be
implied. Hence, the High Court is not correct in saying E
that the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act is repealed
by necessary implication after the promulgation of the
1955 Act, and in particular Section 14Z thereof. [Paras 18,
IL.. • " 19, 20 and 21] [992-G-H; 993-A-C]
1.3 The correct interpretation of the proviso to s.6(3) F
is that once an order is passed by the State Government
under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, thereafter the power
under the proviso to Section· 6(3) of the Act can be
exercised only if (i) some fraud or misrepresentation was
made to the State Government for obtaining the order G
L under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, or (ii) there was a
~-
genuine and important mistake made by the State Govern-
ment in passing the order under Section 6(3) of the 1953
Act. However, the power under the proviso to Section 6(3)
cannot be ex.ercised on the ground that after the order of H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
'T

A the State Government was passed under the main part of
;,.-
Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, some subsequent develop-
ments have taken place. [Para 23] [993-D-F]
1.4 lf a provision similar to proviso to Section 6(3)
were to apply, it will follow that if the dwelling house of
B
the erstwhile intermediary is demolished after the date of
vesting, the State Government can resume ~uch land.
~
Such a view will only lead to large scale chaos because
there must be thousands of such homestead fands and J•·
many of such homesteads may have been demolished pm
c subsequent to the date of vesting. An interpretation which
leads to widespread chaos should be eschewed. [Paras
29 and 31] [995-A-D]
1.5 On a plain reading of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, J-

D it· can be s·een that the State Government can revise an
order passed under the main clause of Section 6(3) of the (
1953 Act. Only the facts as existing at the time when the
order u.nder the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act
was passed by .the State Government can be taken into
consideration while exercising the power under the ...
E
provi$O to SectiOn 6(3) of the 1953 Act. Events subsequent
to passing of the order under the main part of Section
t
6(3) cannot be seen for exercising the power under the
proviso. In the present case, since the power under the
proviso to Sec~ion 6(3) ·of the 1953 Act was exercised by ·
F the State Government by taking into consideration events
" ' -
I

· which happened· after the order under the main part of ,-
Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act was passed, the order of the ,.

State Government for resuming the land in question f
'"-
cannot be sustained. [Paras 32 and 34] [995-D-F; 996-A-B]
G
f
I
2.1 Unless and until there is an order under the main .\_

part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, the intermediary or "
lessee cannot retain the land under Section 6(1 )(g) of the F
1953 Act. This is because unlike sub-clauses (a) to (e) of
Section 6(1) of the 1953 Act in which retention is
H

.'
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. ~RATNAGIRI
,(
" . 985
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

automatic, there is no automatic retention in cases A
covered by sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Section 6(1) of the
1953 Act, and the retention can validly be done only when ·
there is an order by the State Government under Section
6(3) of the 1953 Act. In the present case, since n.o order
was passed by State Government under main part of s.6(3) 8
of 1953 Act, and hence there was no question of revising
the said order, under the proviso to Section 6(3). [Paras
"'+·.., 35 and 36] [996-C-F]
"?> 2.2 Where there is no order of the State Government
u/s. 6(3), the State Government should not straightaway c
resume or take possession of the land, but may issue
notices to the persons in possession of the land to show
cause how they are in possession of the land. 1n response
to the show cause notice the said person will be entitled·
to demonstrate that he is entitled to retain the land under
D
sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 6(1), and if he claims the
benefit of those provisions his case will be considered,
after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, and be
decided by a speaking order. The said person to whom
show cause notice is issued will also be entitled to make
·a representation claiming the benefit of sub-clauses (f) or E
(g) of Section 6(1 ), and if he makes such a representation
the same shall be decided by the concerned authority after
~ giving an opportunity of personal hearing to him and by
a speaking order. [Para 37] [996-F-H; 997-A]
3. The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ F
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ
• petitioner can file a writ petition before the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of
declaring the amendment brought about in the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in so far as they relate to G
\ Section 4 and Section 14Z(1) of the West Bengal Land
1

• '
Reforms Act, 1955 as unconstitutional. [Paras 41 and 42]
[997-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
369-370 of 2005 H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A From the final Judgement and Order dated 11.07.2003 of
the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 279 of 2002, 309
of·2002.·
WITH
.B · [Civil Appeal Nos. 371 of 2005, 372 of2005 & 3662 of 200,5,
1123 of 2007 & WP(C) No. 403 of 2008
Altaf Ahmed, Rajeev Dhawan, Avijit Bhattacharjee,
Saumya Kundu, Subrata Biswas, for the Appellants. ·
C. _, · ~al")jlt Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Krishnan Venugopal, A.K.
~anguly, Shobha Dikshit, Pardeep Gh'1sh, Jaideep Gupta, Sunil
Kumar, Manoj, Rajiv Mehta, Deba'shish Kundu, Aparna Sinha,
Malvika.Trivedi, T. Mahipal, Rana Mukherjee,· Sayantan Bose,
.Goodwill lndeevar, C.l-. Sahu, Kishan Datta, Indra Sawhney,V.N.
R~g-hupathy,' Ramesh Singh, A.T. Patre:1, O.P. Khaitan & Co. A.
0 Agarwalla, R. Ray, K.V. Vijayakumar, D.N. Ray, Sumita Ray,
Abhish Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, Moh it Abraham, T.S .. Satish; K.L;.
Mehta & Co.; Ansar Mandal, B.P. Yadav, Sc;irla Chandra, Aradhna
Patra, for the Respondents.

E T,he Judgement of the Court was delivered by
·' . MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.
: ··' • Civil Appeal Nos. 369-370/2005:
; · · 1. These. two appeals .have b.een filed against tne. final
F: judgment and order dated 11. 7 .2003 passed by the Division
Bench of the Cafoutta High Court in W.P.L.R.T. No. 279 of 2002
and W.P.L.R.T. No. 309 of 2002.
2: H·eard learned cou.nsel for the parties and perused the
record.. ·
q · - · 3. The facts of the case have been mentioned in detail in
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and we need not
repeat the·same here except where necessary. The controversy
in this case relates to the interpretation of the proviso to Section
6(3) of the V:Jest Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953
H (hereinafter referred to as the '1953 Act').
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 987
~
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

4. Before dealing with the controversy we may mention A
that like in many other States in India, after India became
independent in 1947, and after the Constitution of India came
into force in 1950, it was decided by the State Legislature of
West Bengal to abolish the Zamindari system because of its
various evils. Consequently, the 1953 Act was enacted. B
5. Section 4( 1) of the 1953 Act states :
"The State Government may from time to time by notification
"'· declare that with effect from the date mentioned in the
notification, all estates and the rights of every intermediary c
in each such estate situated in any district or part of a
district specified in the notification, shall vest in the State
from all encumbrances".
6. Section 5(1 )(a) of the 1953 Act states :
o~
"Upon the due publication of a notification under section
4, on and from the date of vesting -
(a) the estates and the rights of intermediaries in the
estates, to which the declaration applies, shall vest
in the State free from all encumbrances; in particular .E
and without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of this clause, every one of the following
rights which may be owned by an intermediary shall
vest in the State, namely:-
(i) rights in sub-soil, including rights in mines and F
minerals,
(ii) rights in hats, bazaars, ferries, fisheries, tolls and
other sairati interest;"
7. Thus Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act have the effect of G
"·.. abolishing Zamindari in the State of West Bengal from the date
of notification in the gazette, and from the date of such
notification the estates and rights of intermediaries vest in the
State free from all encumbrances. Notifications were duly issued
under those provisions. H
98S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
,.I;>

A 8. Section 6(1) of the 1953 Act, however, states that
>-
despite the vesting of the rights- of intermediaries in the State,
an intermediary can continue to retain certain lands etc. despite
the vesting. Section 6(1 )(a) to (g) of the 1953 Act states as
follows:
B
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 4 and 5,
an intermediary shall, except in the cases mentioned in
the proviso to sub-section (2) but subject to the other
provisions of that sub-section, be entitled to retain with ...,
effect from the date of vesting -
c
(a) land comprised in homesteads ;
(b) land comprised in or appertaining to buildings -and
structures [owned by the intermediary or by any person, '"'
not being a tenant, holding under him by leave or license];
-: D J

'
(c) non-agricultural land in his khas possession [including l

land held under him by any pe~on, not being a tenant, by
leave or license], not exceeding fifteen acres in area, and
excluding any land retained under clause (a):
1 . ""'

E ·.Provided that the total area of land retained by an
intermediary under .clauses (a) and (c) shall not exceed
twenty acres, as may be chosen by him:
Provided further that if the land retained by an intermediary ~
under clause (c) or any part the.reef is not utilized for a
F period of five consecutive years from the date of vesting,
for a gainful or productive purpose, the land or the part ..
l
thereof may be resumed by the State Government subject
to payment of compensation determined in accordance
. with the principles laid down in sections 23 and 24 of the
G Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
~
(d) agricultural larid in his khas possession, not exceeding ~

)'
twenty-five acres in area, as may be chosen by him:
Pr6vided that, in such portions of the district of Darjeeling
K- - as may be declared by notification by the State
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 989
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

1.., Government to be hilly portions, an intermediary shall be A
~ 'entitled to retain all agricultural land in his khas possession,
or any part thereof as may be chosen by him;
(e) tank fisheries;
Explanation: - "tank fishery" means a reservoir or place
8
for the storage of water, whether formed naturally or by ·
excavation or by construction of embankment~, which is
being used for pisciculture or for fishing, together with the
sub-soil and the b~nks· of such reservoir or place, except
such portion of the banks as are included in a homestead ·
or in a garden or orchard and inclutfes any righl of C:.
pisciculture or fishing in such reservoir or place;
(f) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), land
comprised in tea gardens or orchards or land used for the
purpose of livestock breeding, poultry farming or dairy; D ·
j
(g) . subject .to the provisions. of sub-section(3), tanct
comprised in mills, factories, or workshops;".
9. Section 6(2) makes it clear that t~e intermediary who is
entitled to retain possession of the land under Section 6(1) shall
become tenant of the State in respect of such land. Section 6(2) E
of the Act states: ·
" An intermediary who is entitled to retain possession of
.. any land under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to hold
such land directly under the State from the date of vesting
as a tenant, subject to such terms and conditions as may F
be prescribed and subject to payment of such rent as rnay
be determined under the provisions of this Act and as
entered in the record-of"-rights finally published under
Chapter V except that no rent shall be payable for land
referred to in clause (h) or"(i) : · G
Provided that if any tank fisbery or ~my land comprised in .
a tea-garden, orchard, mill, factory or WOTkshop was held
··immediately before the date of vesting under a lease,
· such lease shall be .d_eemed to have been given by the
State Government on the same terms and conditions as· H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A immediately before such date subject to such modification ~ '
therein as the State Government may think fit to make." ""''
10. We may now come to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act
and its proviso which states:
B "In the case of land comprised in a tea-garden, mill, factory
or workshop the intermediary, or where the land is held
under a lease, the lessee, shall be entitled to retain only
so much of such land as, in the opinion of the State "-
Government, is required for the tea-garden, mill, factory or
c workshop, as the case may be, and a person holding \
under a lease shall, for the purpose of assessment of I
compensation, be deemed to be- an intermediary: f
!
Provided that the State Government may, if it thinks fit so
to do after reviewing the circumstances of a case and
D after giving the intermediary or the lessee, as the case i
may be, an opportunity or being heard, revise any order
made by it under this sub-section specifying the land which
the intermediary or the lessee shall be entitled to retain as
being required by him for the tea-garden, mill, factory or
E workshop, as the case may be". •
r
rf;

11. A perusal of Section 6 of the 1953 Act discloses that !~-
there is a difference between sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section ,___ -
6(1) on the one hand, and sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Section ,
6(1) on the other. While in the case of lands which can be
F retained under sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 6(1 ), the retention
is automatic from the date of vesting and no order of any
authority need be passed for that purpose, in the case of sub-
clauses (f) and (g) of Section 6(1) the retention after the date of
vesting is not automatic, but it is only when the State Government
G passes an order under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act. In other
words, after the date of vesting the lands mentioned in sub- •'
>
clauses (f) and (g) of Section 6(1) cannot be retained by the ~

intermediary unless and until an order is passed by the State
Government under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act.
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 991
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

12. Also, unlike lands mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and A
(b) of Section 6( 1) which can be retained after the date of vesting
irrespective of the area, in the case of lands mentioned in sub-
clauses (f) and (g), only so much of the said land can be retained
which in the opinion of the State Government is required for the
tea-garden, mill, factory or workshop. B
13. The proviso to Section 6(3) gives the power to the State
Government after reviewing the circumstances of the case to
.... revise an order passed under Section 6(3) after giving
opportunity of hearing to the intermediary or lessee. As already
stated above, the controversy is about the interpretation of the c
proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act.
14. In the impugned judgment the High Court has taken
the view that since Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the '1955 Act') has become D
operative on and from 7-8-1969, the impugned order of
resumption under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act
which was made on 21-8-1996 was misconceived and illegal,
as in the opinion of the High Court the proviso to Section 6(3) of
the .1953 Act does not continue in operation after the enactment
E
of Section 14Z of the 1955 Act which has been given
retrospective operation wef 7-8-1969. We regret we cannot
~
agree.
~

15. The 1955 Act also imposes a ceiling on the land which
can be retained by a raiyat. Section 14Z (2) of the 1955 Act F
states as follows:
"In the case of land comprised in a tea garden, mill, factory
or workshop or land used for the purpose of livestock
breeding, poultry farming or dairy, [or township in a Planning
Area as may be permitted to be developed under the G
..
,_
West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and
Development) Act, 1979] the raiyat, or where the land is
held under a lease, the lessee, may be allowed to retain
,, [in excess of the prescribed ceiling] only so much of such
land as, in the opinion of the State Government, is required H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A for the purpose of the tea garden, mill, factory, workshop,
livestock breeding, poultry farming or dairy, as the case ·-.
may be:
Provided that the State Government may, if it thinks fit so
to do, after reviewing the circµmstances of a case and
B
after giving the raiyat or the lessee, as the case may be,
an opportunity of being heard, revise any order made by
it under this clause specifying the land which the raiyat or
the lessee shall be entitled to retain for tea garden, mill, -
factory, workshop, livestock breeding, poultry farming or
c dairy, [or township in a Planning Area as may be permitted
to be developed under the West Bengal Town and Country
(Planning and Development) Act, 1979], as the case may
be."

0 16: The High Court was of the view that the proviso--to
Section 6(3) does not give a right to the State Government to
revise any order passed under the main part of Section 6(3) in
view of the 1955 Act. In other words; the High Court was of the
view that if the lands are allowed to be retained by an order of
the. State government under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act and

r~'>
E was below the ceiling limit, then in view of Section 14Z of the
1955 Act the power under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the
1953 Act cannot be exercised by the State Government. We ~..
-~ (11

regret we cannot agree with this view; " 'j

F 17. In our opinion, the power under the proviso to Section
6(3) of the 1953 Act continues with the State Government even
after the enactment of 1955 Act or Section 14Z thereof.
There is nothing in the 1955 Act or in Section 14Z thereof which
states that on its enactment the power of the State Government
G under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act will cease to
exist. -
18. Section 59 of the 1955 Act repealed certain ~arlier
Acts and Regulations in Bengal. Also, it may be mentioned that
Section 63 of the 1955 Act repealed' certain provisions of West
H Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 which. were
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 993
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

repugnant to the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms A
(Amendment) Act; 1981 in any district or in any area of Calcutta.
19. Section 30 of th.e 1955 Act repealed the West Bengal
Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 with effect from the date
notified by the State Government in the official gazette. ·
B
20. Thus, the 1955Act specifically mentions which earlier
Acts it intends to repeal. There is no provision· in the 1955 Act
which repeals the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act. Nor
~
in our opinion can such a repeal be implied.
21. Hence, we· cannot agree with the view taken by the c
High Court that the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act is
repealed by necessary implication afterthe promulgation of the
1955 Act, and in particular Section 14Z thereof.
,

·22. However, we have also to understand the true purport D
j of the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act.
23. In our opinion, the correct interpretation of the said
.proviso is that once an order is passed by the State Government
under Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, thereafter the power under
the proviso to Section 6(3) the Act can be exercised only if (i) E
some fraud or misrepresentation was made to the State
Government for obtaining the order under Section 6(3) of the
1953 Act, or (ii) there was a genuine and important mistake
-~
made by the State Government in passing the order under
Section 6(3) of the 1953Act. However, in our opinion, the power F
under the proviso to Section 6(3) cannot be exercised on the
ground that after the order of the State Government was passed
under the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act, some
subsequent developments have taken place.
24. To explain this, we may clarify that there may be cases G
·-
i·
~ where an order under the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953
Act was obtained by the intermediary or lessee by
misrepresentation or fraud, e.g. by stating that he has a tea
garden, mill or factory or workshop although he has none, or
that the land he requires for the above purpose is more than H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009l2 S.C.R.

A what he actually required. There may also be cases when~ the ,,,__
State Government has in exercising the power made an honest
mistake. In our opinion in such a case the power under the proviso
to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act can be validly exercised by_ the
State Government. However, the power under the proviso to
B Section 6(3) cannot be validly exercised on the ground that
some subsequent developments have taken place after the order
under the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act was passed,
by the State Government.
-~
25. It was contended by learned.counsel for the appellant
c in some of these cases that although when the order under the
main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act was passed by the
State Government there was a factory on the land in dispute,
subsequently when an enquiry was made in 1991 it was found
that there was no factory at all. Hence it was submitted that the
D State Government validly passed the order resuming the said
·l..
land which had been retained under Section 6(3) of the 1953
Act.
26. \(Ve are of the opinion that if this submission of the
State Government is accepted, it will create chaos because the
E
rights which were settled 20 or 30 years ago or even more may
• • J ~

suddenly be disturbed.
··21. For exaITiple, under Section 6(1)(a) of the 1953 Act, -)

the intermediary can retain the l~nd comprised in his homestead. ~·

F A homestead has been defined in Section 2(g) of the.1953 Act
as follows:
"homestead" means a dwelling .house together with -
any courtyard, compound, garden, out-house, place of
G worship, family grave-yard, library, office, guest-house, tanks,
wells, privies, latrines, drains and boundary walls annexed to or -:i,
appertaining to such dwelling house". -
28. Thusf an intermediary is entitled to retain his
homestead even after the date of vesting.
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 995
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.}

29. If we accept the contention of learned counsel for the A
appellant and if a provision similar to proviso to Section 6(3)
were to apply, it will follow that if the dwelling house of the
erstwhile intermediary is demolished after the date of vesting,
the State Government can resume such land. In our opinion,
such a view will only lead to large scale chaos because there B
must be thousands of such homestead lands and many of such
homesteads may have been demolished subsequent to the date
_; of vesting.
30. Similarly, the lands covering by Section 6(1 )(b) of the
1953 Act which can be retained even after the date of vesting c
could be resumed by the State Government if we accept the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant.
31. In our opinion, an interpretation which leads to
widespread chaos should be eschewed. D.
32. Moreover, on a plain reading of Section 6(3) of the
1953 Act it can be seen that the State Government can revise
an order passed under the main clause of Section 6(3) of the
1953 Act. The use of the word "revise" in the proviso also
supports the view we are taking. In other words, only the facts E
as existing at the time when the order under the main part of
Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act was passed by the State
Government can be taken into consideration while exercising
' ~

the power under the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act.
Events subsequent to passing of the order under the main part F
of Section 6(3) cannot be seen for exercising the power under
the proviso.
33. In view of the above, while we do not agree with the
view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment, we
also hold that once an order under the rnain part of Section 6(3) G
...
}-
of 1953 Act is passed by the State Government, the power under

'
~
the proviso to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised
by the State Government by taking into consideration events
which occurred after the said order was passed.
·.~

H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A 34. Since in the present case the power under the proviso ;-4.
t
to Section 6(3) of the 1953 Act was exercised by the State I

Government by taking into consideration events which happened
after the order under the main part of Section 6(3) of the 1953
Act was passed, the order of the State Government for resuming
B the land in question cannot be sustained.
35. We are informed by learned counsel for respondents
3 and 4 in Civil Appeal No.369 of 2005 and respondents 1 and
:>-
2 in Civil Appeal No.370 of 2005 that there was no order of the
State Government under the main part of Section 6(3) of the
c 1953 Act, and hence there was no question of revising the said
order, under the proviso to Section 6(3).
36. While we agree with the submission, we are of the
view, which we have already expressed above, that unless and
D until there is an order under the main part of Section 6(3) of the
1953 Act, the intermediary or lessee cannot retain the land under
Section 6(1)(g) of the 1953 Act. This is because unlike sub,-
clauses (a) to (e) of Section 6(1) of the 1953 Act in which
retention is automatic, there is no automatic retention in cases
covered by sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Section 6(1) of the 1953
E
Act, and the retention can validly be done only when there is an
order by the State Government under Section 6(3) of the 1953
Act. ~
•
37. However, in such cases i.e. where there is no order of
F the State Government under Section 6(3), the State Government
should not straightaway resume or take possession of the land,
. but may issue notices to the persons in possession of the land
to show cause how they are in possession of the land. In
response to the show cause notice the said person will be
G entitled to demonstrate that he is entitled fo retain the land under
sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 6(1 ), and if he claims the benefit i
of those provisions his case will be considered, after giving an ...
opportunity of personal hearing, and be decided by a speaking
'
order. The said person to whom show cause notice is issued l
will also be entitled to make a representation claiming the benefit "
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. RATNAGIRI 997
ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

of sub-clauses (f) or (g) of Section 6(1 ), and if he makes such a A
representation the same shall be decided by the concerned
authority after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to him
and by a speaking order.
38. Thus while we do not agree with the reasoning in the
impugned judgment we uphold it for a reason other than that
B
contained in the said judgment.
39. With the above observations these appeals stand
J
disposed off. No costs.
Civil A1212eal Nos. 371/2005 1 372/2005 1 3662/2005 1 1123/ c
2007
40. rn view of the decision made in Civil Appeal Nos. 369-
7012005 above, these appeals stand disposed of. No costs.
W.P.(C) No. 403/2008 D
~
41. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution for declaring the amendment brought about in the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in so far as they relate to
Section 4 and Section 14Z ( 1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms
E
Act, 1955 as unconstitutional.
42. In our opinion, the petitioner can file a writ petition before
~
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for this
• purpose. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition
......--
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petition, therefore, F
stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a writ
petition in the High Court for the same relief, if so advised.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of and Writ petition dismissed.