IMPORTANT POINT
It will be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 to interfere with the finding of fact if the subordinate court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby including in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusions are perverse.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 227-Power of superintendence of High Court under-Scope of-Such power not confined to administrative superintendence only-Such power includes within its sweep power of judicial review-Finding of fact of inferior court-It will be open to High Court to interfere with finding of fact if subordinate court came to conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of evidence.
       Held : As regards finding of fact of the inferior court, the High Court should not quash the judgment of the subordinate court merely on the ground that its finding of fact was erroneous but it will be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 to interfere with the finding of fact if the subordinate court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusions are perverse. (Para 10)
       Further held : If the evidences on record in respect of a question of fact is not at all taken into consideration and without reference to such evidence, the finding of fact is arrived at by inferior court or Tribunal, such finding must be held to be perverse and lacking in factual basis. In such circumstances, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will be competent to quash such perverse finding of fact. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-In these appeals, the judgment dated July 15, 1986 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 1691-92 of 1985 arising out of applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment dated April 8, 1985 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Diamond Harbour in R.A.L. Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1983, is under challenge.

2. There is no dispute that one Kamini Mohan Gayen was the owner of the lands in dispute. On June 1, 1968, the said Kamini Mohan Gayen had sold 0.60 cent of land to Achutananda Baidya the appellant in these appeals. The said Kamini Mohan Gayen also sold .60 cent of land on July 1, 1968 to one Sunil Kumar Mondal by a registered sale deed. The appellant Achutananda Baidya subsequently purchased the said 0.60 cent of land from Sunil Kumar Mondal. The successor in interest of Kamini Mohan Gayen, namely, the respondents in these appeals made applications under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Special Officer constituted under the Act for restoration of the said 66 decimals of land and 60 decimals of land which had been transferred by Kamini Mohan Gayen on June 1, 1968 and July 1, 1968. It may be stated here that under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, if the transfer in question had been made after the expiry of the year 1967 with an agreement, written or oral for reconveyance of the land to the transferor, the transferor may within ten years from the date of commencement of the Act may make an application in prescribed manner to the Special Officer having jurisdiction in the area in which the land transferred was situated for restoration of such land to him. Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the transferor may also make an application before the Special Officer for restoration of the alienated land if the transfer of the said land was made after the expiry of the year 1967 if the transferor was in need of money for maintenance of himself and family or for meeting the cost of cultivation.

3. In the application for restoration of the said lands it was contended by the respondents that their predecessor-in-interest Kamini Mohan Gayen was in need of money for the maintenance of his family and in order to procure money to give to daughter in marriage, he had to sell the said lands by the aforesaid registered deeds of sale under distress. It was also contended that the transferor and the transferee entered into oral agreement to reconvey the said land to the transferor.

4. On such application, Cases Nos. 44 and 45 of 1974-75 were initiated before the Special Officer. After a contestant hearing, the Special Officer allowed the said applications for restoration of alienated land inter alia on the finding that Kamini Mohan Gayen sold the land in distress and there was agreement for reconveyance of the said lands to the transferor.

5. The appellant preferred the appeals, namely, R.A.L. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1983-84 before the Sub-Divisional Officer Diamond Harbour, being the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority allowed both the appeals inter alia on the finding that the transfer of the lands in question was for raising money for the business and not for the marriage of the daughter. Hence, the sale was not a distress sale under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The appellate authority also held that there was no oral agreement for reconveyance. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Special Officer for restoration of the alienated Act were set aside by the appellate authority by allowing the appeals.

6. The respondents preferred revisional applications before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the appellate authority. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the finding of the appellate authority that the sale was not made for the marriage of the daughter of the vendor and the applicant was not entitled to claim restoration of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document