Land retained under Section 6(3) for a factory cannot be converted to another use.

The petitioner’s predecessor purchased 4.73 acres in 1962, on which a mill or factory was operating; the purchase deed referred to factory sheds, railway sidings, godowns and related structures.

The land records described the petitioner or its predecessor as “Dakhalkar” on some plots, while the LR Record of Rights (RoR) later recorded that the land had been retained under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (1953 Act), referring to a 1964 order.

In 2018, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer permitted conversion of 2.092 acres to commercial Bastu; the petitioner later sought correction of the LR RoR to reflect the conversion and its changed corporate name.

The Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application and quashed the conversion order; the petitioner challenged that decision in this writ petition.

1. Whether the subject land was governed by Sections 6(1)(g) and 6(3) of the 1953 Act and could be converted from its mill/factory use.

2. Whether the petitioner’s or its predecessor’s entry as “Dakhalkar” established non-agricultural tenancy, thereby excluding the land from vesting under the 1953 Act.

Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act provide for vesting upon the relevant notification, subject to retention under Section 6; under Sections 6(1)(g) and 6(3), land comprised in a mill, factory or workshop may be retained only to the extent the State considers necessary for that use.

A non-agricultural tenancy requires the person to hold land under another and be liable to pay rent; the Court considered the definitions in Section 2(k) of the 1953 Act and Section 2(5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949.

BRC Construction Company Private Limited v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 3 CHN 658, and Saregama India Limited v. State of West Bengal, W.P.L.R.T. 126 of 2023, distinguish land retained under Section 6(1)(b) from land governed by Section 6(1)(g) and Section 6(3).

Sakhi Chand Mali @ Sakhi Chand Ram v. State of West Bengal, W.P.L.R.T. 733 of 2004, supports the principle that an unchallenged foundational vesting or retention order cannot ordinarily be reopened through a later consequential challenge.

The Court also relied on Asrurekha Dutta v. Diptimay Pal, 1966 SCC OnLine Cal 110, and related authorities to conclude that “Dakhalkar” does not, without proof of tenancy and rent, necessarily mean a non-agricultural tenant.

Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions: O.P. Lather v. Satish Kumar Kakkar, (2001) 3 SCC 110, and DDA v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297.

The deed and the admitted operation of a mill/factory supported application of Section 6(1)(g), read with Section 6(3).

The LR RoR recorded retention under Section 6(3), including particulars of the underlying proceeding; in the absence of a successful challenge or cogent rebuttal, the Court treated the entry as supporting the retention and held that the issue could not be reopened collaterally.

It further held that Section 6(1)(b) did not displace Section 6(1)(g) for land exclusively comprised in a mill or factory, and treated the recorded retention as covering the purchased property.

The petitioner produced no rent receipts or other evidence that it or its predecessor held the land under a superior lessor and paid rent; the deed instead evidenced a transfer of ownership rights. The “Dakhalkar” description therefore did not establish non-agricultural tenancy or an exclusion from the 1953 Act.

Because the land had been retained for mill/factory use under Section 6(3), the conversion order permitting another use was without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the petitioner’s reliance on the 1949 Act or the administrative circular.

It held the 2018 conversion order to be without jurisdiction and upheld the Tribunal’s refusal to correct the LR RoR on the basis of that order.

The writ petition was dismissed on contest, the Tribunal’s judgment affirmed, and no order as to costs was made.