Perverse factual findings and oral proof of re-conveyance sustained restoration orders under supervisory jurisdiction.

A factual finding recorded without considering material evidence is perverse and can be corrected by the High Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Oral testimony describing negotiations and discussions in the witnesses' presence was treated as direct evidence and sufficient under Section 60 of the Evidence Act to prove an oral agreement for re-conveyance. Once that finding was displaced, the basis for disturbing the restoration orders under the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 disappeared, and the Special Officer's orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the appellate authority's finding on the existence of an oral agreement for re-conveyance when that finding was recorded without considering relevant evidence. (ii) Whether the oral evidence adduced was legally insufficient under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the oral agreement for re-conveyance. (iii) Whether the restoration orders under Section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 were liable to be upheld.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the appellate authority's finding on the existence of an oral agreement for re-conveyance when that finding was recorded without considering relevant evidence.

Analysis: The appellate authority's finding was held to be unsustainable because it had been recorded without consideration of the material evidence bearing on the issue. A factual finding arrived at by ignoring relevant evidence is perverse and lacks factual basis. In such a situation, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits interference, since the purpose of that jurisdiction is to ensure that the subordinate authority has acted within the bounds of law and jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to interfere with the appellate authority's finding on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the oral evidence adduced was legally insufficient under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the oral agreement for re-conveyance.

Analysis: The requirement of direct oral evidence was not violated merely because the witnesses described negotiations and discussions taking place in their presence. Such testimony could reasonably establish that an oral agreement for re-conveyance had been made. The objection that the witnesses had not used a more formal or literal expression of direct hearing was treated as too technical.

Conclusion: The oral evidence was sufficient to prove the oral agreement for re-conveyance.

Issue (iii): Whether the restoration orders under Section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 were liable to be upheld.

Analysis: Once the finding of the appellate authority on the absence of an oral agreement was displaced, the basis for interfering with the restoration orders disappeared. The orders passed by the Special Officer were supported on the record and did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The restoration orders were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court's interference with the perverse factual finding was justified, the oral agreement was adequately proved, and the restoration orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact recorded by ignoring relevant evidence is perverse and may be corrected by the High Court under Article 227, and oral testimony describing negotiations and agreement in the witness's presence can constitute direct evidence sufficient to prove an oral agreement.

---