Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Shalimar Wires Industries Limited (petitioner) vs. State of West Bengal and others (respondents).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of a conversion order and the recording of land status in the Records of Rights (LR RoR).
  • Key Dates & Background:
  • 3 May 1962 – Deed of purchase of 4.73 acres (out of 18.228 acres) in Mouza Uttarpara, Hooghly, by the predecessor company (then Shalimar Industries Private Ltd).
  • 23 Aug 2013 & 6 Dec 2019 – LR RoR issued showing “Shalimar Industries Private Ltd” as raiyat.
  • Company renamed to Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd.
  • 2 Jan 2018 – District Land & Land Reforms Officer (DL & LRO), Hooghly, issued conversion order permitting conversion of 2.092 acres to commercial use.
  • 9 Mar 2021 – Application filed to correct name and incorporate conversion character in LR RoR.
  • 20 Dec 2021 – ADM & DL & LRO directed petitioner to propose lease under Section 4B of West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2017.
  • 13 Apr 2022 – Petitioner reiterated correction request; LR RoR prepared on 18 Mar 2024 for 4.711 acres, but conversion character not reflected; remark noted “Section 6(3) of the W.B.E.A Act, 1953 is applicable”.
  • Apr 2024 – Petitioner wrote to Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) seeking revised Khatian; demand of justice sent on 18 Apr 2024.
  • OA No. 1908 of 2024 (LRTT) moved before West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal; Tribunal dismissed OA and quashed conversion order on 18 Mar 2026.
  • Petition filed before this Court (W.P.L.R.T. No. 137 of 2026) challenging the Tribunal’s order.
  • Legal Issues Raised:

1. Whether the subject plots fall within the purview of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (the “1953 Act”).

2. Whether the petitioner, recorded as “Dakhalkar”, should be treated as a non‑agricultural tenant (NA tenant) and thus be outside the operation of the 1953 Act.

  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • “Dakhalkar” denotes NA tenancy; NA tenants are transferable under the West Bengal Non‑Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 and are exempt from vesting under the 1953 Act.
  • The conversion order of 2 Jan 2018 is valid under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
  • The entry of retention under Section 6(3) in the LR RoR is illegal because the land was below the ceiling limits and the predecessor was not an “intermediary”.
  • Reliance on several judgments (Asrurekha Dutta, Shibsankar Nandy, BRC Construction, Saregama India, etc.) and a 1994 Government Circular stating “Dakhalkar” tenants may hold land in khas possession.
  • State’s Contentions:
  • LR RoR entry shows retention under Section 6(3) based on a memo dated 7 Oct 1964 (Memo 17670L) issued under Section 44(2a) of the 1953 Act.
  • The land comprised a mill/factory; therefore, Section 6(1)(g) and Section 6(3) apply, allowing retention for the purpose of the mill.
  • No challenge to the 1953‑Act order was ever made; the retention is final and the conversion order is beyond jurisdiction.
  • The 1994 Circular is merely an executive instruction and cannot override statutory provisions.
  • Court’s Reasoning & Findings:
  • Vesting under the 1953 Act is governed by Sections 4, 5 and 6; Section 6(1) provides a non‑obstante clause allowing retention of certain categories, including land used for mills/factories (clause (g)).
  • Sub‑section 3 of Section 6 limits retention to the portion the State deems necessary for the mill; the land in question (4.73 acres) was recorded as retained under Section 6(3), implying the entire parcel was deemed necessary for the mill/factory.
  • Judicial precedents (BRC Construction, Saregama India) establish that where land is comprised exclusively of a mill/factory, Clause (g) prevails over Clause (b); the retention order is not surplusage.
  • The term “Dakhalkar” merely means “occupant/possessor”; it does not automatically confer NA‑tenant status. NA tenancy under the 1949 Act requires (i) holding under a superior person and (ii) payment of rent – facts not established by the petitioner.
  • No rent receipts or lease documents were produced; the purchase deed shows outright transfer of ownership, not tenancy.
  • The 1994 Circular cannot override the 1953 Act; statutory provisions prevail over executive instructions.
  • Consequently, the petitioner is not a non‑agricultural tenant; the 1953 Act applies, and the land was lawfully retained under Section 6(3).
  • Because the land was retained for mill/factory use, the 2 January 2018 conversion order (which permitted commercial use “without prejudice to Section 6(3)”) is ultra vires and a nullity.
  • Final Outcome
  • The writ petition (W.P.L.R.T. No. 137 of 2026) is dismissed on contest.
  • The judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dated 18 March 2026 is affirmed.
  • The conversion order dated 2 January 2018 is declared a nullity.
  • The petitioner's request to correct the LR RoR based on the conversion order is rejected.
  • Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Land Reform, Court Judgment