Calcutta High Court Calls Mizoram’s Kolkata Land Sale Cancellation ‘Regime Revenge’, Orders Sale Within Eight Weeks
Mizoram’s Kolkata land sale could not be cancelled merely because a new government took charge, the Calcutta High Court has held, calling the cancellation a case of “regime revenge” and directing the State to execute the sale deed within eight weeks.
Kolkata: The State could not go back on a concluded deal merely because a new government had taken charge, the Calcutta High Court ruled on Friday, November 13, 2026, dismissing the Government of Mizoram’s appeal against a single judge order that had set aside its cancellation of the sale of a Ballygunge plot to a private company [State of Mizoram & Others v. Excel Vincom Private Limited & Anr.].
The appeal, FMA 772 of 2024, was decided by a Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray. Justice Arijit Banerjee wrote the judgment, with Justice Apurba Sinha Ray concurring.
From guest house to auction
The land at 24, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata, was bought by the Government of Mizoram in 1973. It housed the State’s guest house, the only Mizoram House in Kolkata till 1998, and its Kolkata offices. The old building was demolished in 2020.
On or about May 26, 2023, the State’s General Administration Department floated an e-tender-cum-e-auction for the land. Excel Vincom Private Limited emerged as the highest bidder, and an unregistered agreement for sale was signed on October 6, 2023. The company paid the full consideration of about Rs 38.3 crore, along with penalty money for a delayed instalment, and the State accepted the payments. With Assembly elections approaching, the State told the company that the conveyance would be executed after the polls.
A new government took charge on December 8, 2023. Following representations from Kolkata Mizo Students and the Calcutta Mizo Welfare Association, which stressed the property’s historical value and its role as a refuge for Mizo students and professionals in Kolkata, the State cancelled the entire e-tender process on January 4, 2024, and refunded the money. On April 2, 2024, a single judge allowed the company’s writ petition (WPA No. 1344 of 2024), set aside the cancellation and directed execution of the sale deed within six weeks. The State appealed.
A binding contract, and “regime revenge”
The Bench found that a binding contract had come into existence. The State had accepted the full sale price and the penalty money without reservation, the terms of the agreement had been settled after detailed deliberation, and the only reason the conveyance was deferred was the coming election. The new government, it noted, cancelled the process unilaterally without even speaking to the company.
“It does appear to us that this is a case of ‘regime revenge’. The Government cannot renege on a promise made and acted upon by a citizen to his detriment, only because there is a change in regime.”
What Mizoram argued
Advocate General Biswajit Deb, for Mizoram, argued that the change of government was not the reason for the cancellation. The new government, he said, shelved the sale out of regard for the sentiments of the close-knit Mizo community in Kolkata, after anomalies surfaced in the earlier decision. He contended that the previous government had not followed Rule 309 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, had not obtained in-principle approval of the Council of Ministers, and that under the tender conditions ownership would pass only on execution of the sale deed, so the State was entitled to cancel.
He also argued that the arbitration clause in the agreement was an alternative remedy that barred the writ petition.
Senior Advocate SN Mookherjee, for Excel Vincom, submitted that the correspondence between the parties showed that the stage for cancelling the tender had long passed and that only execution of the sale deed remained. It was the change in government, he argued, that brought the sale to an abrupt halt.
Public interest and Article 14
Dealing with the State’s reliance on precedents on promissory estoppel and public interest, the Court said it had found no public interest or public equity that could justify cancelling the tender. It also noted that the State had not claimed that cancellation was needed to protect public revenue.
“The impugned action of the appellant was unfair, unjust, arbitrary and flagrantly violative of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants have not been able to demonstrate any public interest, far less overwhelming public interest, which could justify cancellation of the tender process. The decision of the Government to cancel the entire process appears to us to be a clear case of regime revenge.”
The directions
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court extended the time for the State to comply with the single judge’s order, which requires it to execute and help register the sale deed in favour of Excel Vincom, by eight weeks from November 13, 2026.
Why the judgment matters
When the State enters a contract, it remains bound by Article 14 and must act fairly and reasonably. A new government can change policy, but it cannot undo a concluded transaction, where the citizen has paid in full and acted on the State’s word, without showing a real public interest that outweighs the private party’s rights.
The ruling also separates a bare tender, where the highest bidder has no vested right, from a deal that has moved to an executed agreement and full payment. Once that line is crossed, community sentiment or a change of regime alone will not justify walking away.
Case Title: State of Mizoram & Others v. Excel Vincom Private Limited & Anr. [FMA 772 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: November 13, 2026
For the Appellants: Advocate General Biswajit Deb (Mizoram) with Sayan Dev Kumar, Priyakshi Banerjee, Sourav Ghosh and Priyanka Ghosh
For the Respondents: Senior Advocate SN Mookherjee with Rajarshi Dutta, Shaunak Mukhopadhyay, Shubrajyoti Mukherjee, Neelesh Choudhury and Anuradha Poddar
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.