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

p. 542

it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties…”

89. In the instant case, as the Revenue Officer did not have the jurisdiction to review the earlier vesting determination, the 2008 review order strikes at the very root of the matter and is a non-curable defect. Importantly, “competence of a Court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction”, as was held in Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath36. A decree or order passed by a Court which lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing such an order or decree is non-est and void ab initio, as was held by this Court in the case of Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule37. In the said case, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that: “9…The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be “null” and “void”. In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings.”

36 1961 SCC OnLine SC 42. 37 (2004) 8 SCC 706.

p. 543

90. Another submission was made by the respondent-company that the appellant-State had not taken physical possession of the land, and no compensation was paid to the respondent-company. This, in our view, does not alter the nature of the status of land inasmuch as that vesting order dated 07.10.1971 had attained finality, and mere holding of some parts of the land would not endow any right to the respondent-company to claim ownership or title over the same.

CONCLUSION

91. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the fresh order dated 07.05.2008 was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The WBEA Act, 1953, does not confer any power of substantive review upon the Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication. The Government Order dated 26.02.2008, even though approved at the ministerial level, could not create or confer such jurisdiction on the Revenue Officer. The review further fails on merits, as none of the conditions prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC were satisfied.

92. The 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, 1953, and well-settled principles governing the limits of quasi-judicial power. The 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.

93. The High Court, however, fell into error in reversing the Tribunal’s decision. It incorrectly proceeded on the premise that the Government Order issued under Section 57A of the WBEA Act, 1953, 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. The High Court also overlooked the limits on vesting the judicial function of review power in executive authorities.

94. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the appeal filed by the appellant-State is allowed.

p. 544

The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 17.05.2012, passed in WPLRT No. 43 of 2010, is set aside. The order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2010 is restored, and the review order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Revenue Officer stands quashed. The vesting order dated 07.10.1971 shall continue to operate in accordance with the law.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.