Settled record-of-rights and intermediary retention rights under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act clarified for long-standing land disputes.

Inherent or ancillary powers cannot be used to reopen a finally published record-of-rights after inordinate delay where no fraud or collusion is alleged, especially when the statute provides specific mechanisms and the parties have long acted on the settled record. The text also states that Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 permits retention of land appertaining to buildings or structures owned by the intermediary without requiring khas possession. On that reasoning, the rival reliance on Section 6(1)(g) and allied provisions was treated as inapplicable on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State could reopen, after nearly 38 years, the record-of-rights finally published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 by invoking Section 57A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the disputed land was retainable by the intermediary under Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, or whether Section 6(1)(g) and allied provisions applied so as to vest the land in the State.

Issue (i): Whether the State could reopen, after nearly 38 years, the record-of-rights finally published under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 by invoking Section 57A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The record-of-rights had been prepared and finally published in 1957, and the parties had thereafter acted upon it for decades. No fraud or collusion was alleged. The State, despite having knowledge of the earlier proceedings and the liquidation of the lessee, attempted to revive the matter through inherent powers after the respondents had already succeeded in earlier writ proceedings. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to unsettle concluded matters where the statute itself contains specific mechanisms, and the manner of issuing notice and passing the order showed serious lack of bona fides.

Conclusion: The State was not entitled to reopen the settled record-of-rights in the manner adopted, and the action was unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed land was retainable by the intermediary under Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, or whether Section 6(1)(g) and allied provisions applied so as to vest the land in the State.

Analysis: Section 6(1)(b) does not require khas possession where the land is comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures owned by the intermediary. The absence of the phrase "khas possession" in clause (b), contrasted with its express use in other clauses, shows that actual possession is not a precondition there. The premises formed part of a composite lease of land with buildings and structures, and the provisions relating to mills and leases in Section 6(1)(g), Section 6(2) and Section 6(3) were held inapplicable on the facts. The land therefore did not vest in the State, and the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 could not be invoked on the footing asserted by the State.

Conclusion: Section 6(1)(b) applied in favour of retention by the intermediary, and the rival contention based on Section 6(1)(g) failed.

Final Conclusion: The attempted reopening of long-settled revenue records was impermissible, and the respondents' title and possession could not be displaced on the basis asserted by the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent or ancillary powers cannot be used to reopen settled statutory records after inordinate delay in the absence of fraud or collusion, and Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 permits retention of land appertaining to buildings or structures owned by the intermediary without requiring khas possession.

---