Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot upset supported findings merely because a different evidentiary view is possible.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to cases of jurisdictional error, perversity, or absence of supporting material; a finding backed by some evidence cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible. Applying that standard, the concurrent finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for two years was left undisturbed, and the High Court's wider interference was held impermissible. In the record-of-rights objection proceedings under Section 44 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the authorities were competent to determine the appellant's status, and the entry treating the appellant as a tenure holder was upheld because the challenge disclosed no jurisdictional error or perversity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the concurrent finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for two years, and (ii) whether the entry recording the appellant as a tenure holder could be maintained on the objections raised under Section 44 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the concurrent finding that the respondent was a temporary lessee for two years.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded jurisdiction, or rendered a finding that is unsupported by material or is perverse. The Revenue authorities relied on admitted possession, the appellant's failure to produce relevant accounts, the admission regarding payment of Rs. 3,000 as advance, and the compromise between the parties which supported an inference that the respondent's possession was referable to a lease for a limited period. Even if some parts of the evidence were open to different construction, there was material on which the finding could rest. The High Court therefore went beyond the permissible limits of interference under Article 227.

Conclusion: The interference with the concurrent finding on the respondent's status as temporary lessee was not justified, and that finding was restored.

Issue (ii): whether the entry recording the appellant as a tenure holder could be maintained on the objections raised under Section 44 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

Analysis: The objection proceedings under Section 44(1) permitted inquiry into the correctness of entries in the draft record of rights, and an appeal lay under Section 44(3). The objection as amended expressly questioned the appellant's description as a raiyat, and the appellant consented to the amendment. The Settlement Officer, the District Judge, and the High Court found on materials that the appellant was a permanent mokarari tenure holder and not a raiyat. The challenge to that finding did not establish any jurisdictional error or perversity, and the objection authority was competent to determine that status in the course of the record-of-rights proceedings.

Conclusion: The entry recording the appellant as a tenure holder was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The supervisory correction made by the High Court was set aside in relation to the respondent's leasehold status, while the entry as to the appellant's tenure-holder status was maintained, leaving the Revenue authorities' findings substantially intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Article 227, a High Court may interfere with a subordinate tribunal's finding only for jurisdictional error, perversity, or absence of material, and a finding supported by some evidence cannot be disturbed merely because a different view of the evidence is possible.

---