Findings of fact can be interfered with if they are perverse, unreasonable, or based on a patent misconception of a basic fact or law.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS call in question legality of order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (L. R.), Balasore upsetting views of Revenue Officer, Soro and Officer on Special Duty (L. R.), Sadar Sub-Division, Balasore. Krushna Chandra Biswal, opposite party No. 3 herein lodged a claim that he was a bhag tenant under petitioners and sought for a declaration to that effect. On considering background facts with which we shall deal with infra, original as well as appellate authorities held that claim was untenable. Moreover, their conclusions were reversed by revisional authority on the ground that they had not drawn proper conclusions.

( 2 ) A brief reference to the background facts as found by the authorities below is necessary for decision of the question whether revisional order suffers from any infirmity. The case land was purchased in Court auction by one Mohan Nayak, uncle of petitioner No. 3. Case land originally belonged to one Bhagabat Biswal, a remote ancestor of opposite party No. 3. On 12-31934 delivery of possession was taken by Mohan. Sometimes in 1959, Krushna requested petitioners to sale the case land to him. Since they did not agree, there was disturbance in possession of the petitioners. Suit (T. S. No. 96/59) was filed by petitioners in the Court of learned Munsif, Balasore for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 22-12-1963, but appeal (Munsif Appeal No. 47/36 of 1963) was allowed by judgment dt. 16-1-1964. On 14-11-1965 there was again disturbance and on the allegation of commission of offence punishable under S. 379 of Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') amongst other offences, Krushna and 11 others arrayed as accused persons in GR Case No. 836 of 1965. They were convicted by judgment dt. 9-5-1968. A petition under Sec. 15 (1) (d) of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the 'act') was filed on 23-111986, by Krushna claiming that he was inducted as a tenant twenty years back in respect of A. 2. 99 decimals of land. On 20-121985, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal P. C. , 1973 (in short, the 'code') (Misc. Case No. 318/95) was initiated. By order dt. 5-7-1986 the Revenue Officer dismissed the application with the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. By judgment dt. 30-6-1987, the appeal was dismissed by appellate authority. Revisional authority held that there was definite material to show existence of relationship as landlord and tenant, and such relationship has been established.

( 3 ) MR. S. Misra (2), learned Counsel for petitioners has urged that conclusions of original and appellate authorities (done of elaborate analysis of evidence) did not need any interference and revisional authority has upset the conclusions without any basis. Mr. M. R. Panda, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Court would be slow in interfering with finding of facts, by forum authorised to record finding of facts.

( 4 ) THOUGH scope for interference with conclusions on facts is rather limited, but where conclusions are perverse, unreasonable and are of such nature that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, there is certainly no bar on interference. It is established that the finding of fact is based on no evidence, or that the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonable person could have arrived at it, even if the evidence was taken at its face value or the finding is based on built on inadmissible evidence, which evidence if excluded from vision would negate a party's case or substantially discredit or impair it, or some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the opposite party has been overlooked, disregarded or wrongly discarded, interference is permissible. Where the forum below has misdirected itself in its approach, overlooked salient features, and e