No Estoppel Against Statute, No Equity Against Vesting: Supreme Court Rejects ‘Amicable Settlement’ to Undo Land Reform Vesting

“A void order cannot be sanctified by consent, compromise or executive assurance”, On 06 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a clear warning against attempts to undo concluded land reform vesting through compromise, executive assurances or so-called amicable settlements.

Speaking through Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, for the Bench also comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh, the Court held that once land vests in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and such vesting attains finality, no subsequent settlement, promise, or withdrawal of litigation can revive extinguished rights.

The Court emphatically ruled that there can be no promissory estoppel against statute, and that orders passed without jurisdiction remain nullities irrespective of governmental approval or private reliance.

“There was no subsisting dispute to settle”

After the vesting order dated 07.10.1971 denied Jai Hind Private Limited the benefit of Section 6(1)(j) and vested over 205 acres of land in the State, the company’s judicial challenge failed conclusively. Its writ petition was dismissed in 1975, restoration rejected in 1987, and appeal dismissed in 2002.

Despite this finality, during the pendency of a separate ceiling dispute under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the respondent-company approached the State Government around 2007–2008, proposing an “amicable settlement”. The company projected plans for an eco-friendly agro-based industry, employment generation, and agreed to withdraw pending litigation.

Acting on this proposal, the Government issued an order dated 26.02.2008, directing a review of the 1971 vesting order, culminating in the review order dated 07.05.2008, which restored substantial land to the company.

The Supreme Court dismantled this entire foundation, holding that there was no subsisting legal dispute capable of settlement at all.

The Court observed in substance that the issue of retention under Section 6(1)(j) stood finally concluded decades earlier, and therefore,

“When the so-called amicable settlement was arrived at, there was no subsisting dispute between the parties.”

“Equity cannot override legislative command” - Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Rejected

One of the principal defences raised by the respondent-company was that the State was estopped from resiling from the 2008 review order since the company had withdrawn cases and altered its position relying on governmental assurances.

The Supreme Court rejected this plea outright, holding:

“Once the review is found to be without jurisdiction and contrary to law, the question of invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not arise.”

The Court reiterated the settled principle that there can be no estoppel against statute, and that executive assurances cannot validate an action which the statute does not permit. Any settlement or promise founded on an act ultra vires the statute is legally unenforceable.

“Executive settlement cannot resurrect extinguished rights” - Limits of Executive Power in Land Reforms

The Court noted that the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is a social welfare and land reform legislation, designed to finally extinguish intermediary rights upon vesting. Allowing executive authorities to reopen vesting through compromise would defeat the very purpose of the statute.

The Bench cautioned that accepting such settlements would mean that finality of vesting becomes hostage to political or administrative discretion, a result wholly incompatible with the rule of law.

In clear terms, the Court held that economic benefits, employment potential, or policy considerations cannot form the basis for undoing a statutory vesting which has attained finality.

“Void orders do not gain legitimacy with time” - Nullity Can Be Challenged Anytime

The Supreme Court further held that the 2008 review order, being without jurisdiction, was void ab initio, and therefore its invalidity could be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings.

Reaffirming classic authority, the Court reminded:

“A decree or order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be relied upon.”

Accordingly, the Tribunal was fully justified in quashing the review order even in the absence of a specific prayer, as jurisdictional defects strike at the very root of authority.

“Non-payment of compensation does not undo vesting”

The respondent-company also argued that since compensation had not been paid and possession was allegedly retained, vesting was incomplete. The Court firmly rejected this contention, clarifying that vesting under the Act operates by force of law, and

“Non-payment of compensation, even if assumed, does not invalidate vesting but merely gives rise to a statutory entitlement to compensation.”

Physical possession or delay in distribution of land, the Court held, does not revive ownership once vesting is complete.

By rejecting the plea of promissory estoppel, settlement and executive equity, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that land reform vesting is final, irreversible and immune from post-facto executive indulgence.

The judgment decisively establishes that statutory land acquisition cannot be undone through compromise or consent, and that void orders remain void, no matter how benevolent their intent or how long they survive.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026