Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 394
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
Sushil Kumar Sasmal & Anr.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
WRIT C.O. No. 19200 (W) of 1994 with C.O. No. 19200(A) of 1994 and C.O. No. 19200(B) of 1994
Decided On : September 4, 1998
A.K. Das, S.S. Bayerd for the petitioner;
J.K. Chatterjee, D. Gain, for the respondent No. 4.
P.B. Chakraborty in C.O. No. 19200 (W) of 1994 for the State;
D.N. Sen in C.O. No. 19200 B of 1994 for the State;
T.N. Shukla, A.R. Gupta in C.O. No. 19200 A of 1994 for the State.
An appellate authority must apply its mind to the case, follow the principles of law governing appellate authority, and avoid committing jurisdictional errors, such as considering irrelevant facts, failing to consider relevant facts, and failing to pose the correct questions to determine the jurisdictional issue.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL RESTORATION OF ALIENATED LAND ACT, 1973 - SECTION 4(10) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S DUTY AND JURISDICTION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED TO QUASH APPELLATE ORDER FOR FAILURE TO APPLY MIND AND COMMITTING JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging an appellate order that allowed an appeal against the dismissal of an application for restoration of alienated land under the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973. The petitioner, who purchased the land from the respondent, argued that the appellate authority failed to properly consider the evidence and committed jurisdictional errors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the case and failed to follow the principles of law governing appellate authority. The court held that the appellate authority committed jurisdictional errors by considering irrelevant facts, failing to consider relevant facts, and failing to pose the correct questions to determine the jurisdictional issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate authority properly considered the evidence and applied the principles of law governing appellate authority. 2. Whether the appellate authority committed jurisdictional errors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate authority failed to apply its mind to the case and committed jurisdictional errors by considering irrelevant facts, failing to consider relevant facts, and failing to pose the correct questions to determine the jurisdictional issue. The court relied on the principles of law governing appellate authority, as well as the decisions in Balbir Kaur vs. Chokai Construction and Anisminic Ltd. vs. Foreign Compensation Commission, to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned appellate order, and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
S.B. Sinha, J.
This writ application as directed against a judgment and order dated 4.4.94 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in annexure 'c' to the writ application thereby and whereunder he allowed an appeal filed by the private respondent No. 4 from an order dated 18.8.92 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing an application for restoration filed by the private respondent under the provisions of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.)
2. The said application was filed on the ground that a deed of sale was executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner on 4.6.68 and whereas in the said deed of sale consideration amount was shown as Rs. 1,000/- according to the respondent No. 4, he received only a sum of Rs. 700/-. It was contended that there was also an oral agreement of repurchase.
3. The application for restoration was filed by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that he said the same for meeting the expenses as the same was necessary to maintain his family; whereas the case of the petitioner is that such sale deed was executed with a view to develop his business. By reason of an order dated 18.8.92 the respondent No. 3 dismissed the said application filed by the respondent No. 4 under section 4(4A) of the said Act. The said respondent preferred an appeal there against which was marked as R.A. Case No. 33 of 1992. The respondent No. 2 by a judgment and order dated 4.4.94 allowed the said appeal.
4. The order impugned in this writ application clearly goes to show that the respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind as regards duties and functions of an appeal court. It is now well settled that by reason of various decisions of this court as also the Supreme Court of India that an appeal court does not normally interfere with the findings of fact unless such findings are against records or some evidence had been admitted in evidence contrary to the provisions of law or in a case where such judgment is based on inadmissible evidence. The respondent No. 3 rightly framed 5 issues which are as follows:-
"(1) Whether the prayer for restoration of alienated land was filed before the prescribed authority and within the prescribed period as laid down in this Act, or not?
(2) Whether the suit land was actually transferred by the transferor being in need of money for maintenance of himself and his family or meeting the cost of his cultivation or not?
(3) Whether there was an oral agreement for reconveyance of the suit land between the transferor and the transferees, or not?
(4) Whether the transferees are entitled to have the benefit of section 4(10) of the amended Act, or not?
(5) Whether the transferor is entitled to have an order of restoration of the suit land, as prayed for, or not?
5. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the respondent No. 4 however, while deciding issue No. 2, the said respondent, inter alia, came to the finding that the word 'want' has different sense to different persons of the society, and he illustrated the same. The respondent No. 4 had according to the said respondent, not specifically stated the want of livelihood. It was further noticed that he although admitted that he had been carrying on business, had not produced his licence despite an assurance given in this regard. He had not been able to prove the rate of market value of and per bigha or per cattah.
6. P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that there was a quarrel with the opposite party transferees regarding possession of plot No. 1310/1779 of Mouza-Khetrapal, and a diary in the local police station was lodged against the opposite parties. P.W. 2 was found to be an interested witness who had also stated in his examination in chief that the transferor transferred and suit land for want, but in cross examination admitted that he did not keep any information about the family of the transferor at that time, and even at present he also does not keep information, and thus accordi
