Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (4) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an 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 Achulananda 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 Mondat. 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 l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant hearing, the Special Officer allowed the said applications for restoration of alienated land and inter alia on the finding that Kamini Mohan Gayen sold the land in distress and there was agreement for re-conveyance of the said lands to the transferor. 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 tor raising money for the business and not for the marriage of the daughter. Hence, the sale was not a distress sale under Section 4(l)(a) of the Act. The appellate authority also held that there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e High Court to interfere with such finding of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr. Bhattacharya has also submitted that in the impugned deeds there was no reference that the lands transferred were to he re-convcyed. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution have been taken into consideration by this Court in a number of decisions and it has been indicated that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not a jurisdiction of an appellate authority which can re-appreciate evidence adduced in a case and come to an independent finding of fact on such re-appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l agreement. Hence, in any event, the High Court was wrong in reversing the finding of the appellate authority that there was no agreement for re-conveyance. Mr. Bhattacharya has, therefore, submitted that impugned judgment should be set aside by allowing these appeals and cancelling the orders for restoration of alienated lands. We are, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr. Bhattacharya. In this case, the High Court has rightly held that the appellate authority came to the finding of non-existence of oral agreement of re-conveyance without considering the evidence on record. If the appellate authority does not consider the materials on record having a bearing on a finding of fact and makes the finding of fact, such finding of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusions are perverse. If the evidence 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. So far as the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that the oral evidence about the agreement of re-conveyance entered between the parties as invalid and insufficient in view of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates