9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
- Interpretation of Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 - Existence of oral agreement for re-conveyance between transferor and transferee Interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Act: The case involved a dispute over the application of Section 4(1) of the Act, which allows for restoration of alienated land under certain conditions. The respondents claimed that the transfer of land by Kamini Mohan Gayen was due to financial distress for family maintenance and marriage expenses, thus seeking restoration under Section 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. Existence of Oral Agreement for Re-conveyance: The main contention revolved around the existence of an oral agreement for re-conveyance between the transferor and the transferee. The Special Officer initially allowed restoration based on finding a distress sale and an agreement for re-conveyance. However, the appellate authority overturned this decision, stating that the sale was for business purposes and there was no oral agreement for re-conveyance. High Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the appellate authority's ruling regarding the purpose of the sale not being for the daughter's marriage, as claimed by the respondents. However, the High Court disagreed on the existence of an oral agreement for re-conveyance, citing evidence presented in the case. The High Court concluded that the restoration orders should stand based on the established oral agreement. Appellate Arguments: Mr. Bhattacharya, representing the appellant, argued that the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with the appellate authority's findings. He contended that the witnesses' oral evidence did not meet the requirements of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus questioning the validity of the oral agreement for re-conveyance. Court's Decision: The Court rejected Mr. Bhattacharya's arguments, stating that the appellate authority's finding lacked consideration of the evidence on record regarding the oral agreement. The Court emphasized the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 227, allowing interference in cases of erroneous assumptions or improper exercise of jurisdiction. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the witnesses' depositions implied knowledge of the oral agreement, dismissing the appeals with no costs awarded.
|
