SANTA DAS Vs. KISHORE KUMAR BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application arises out of an application filed by the petitioner to enforce her right of pre-emption in respect of the concerned land. The learned 1st Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Midnapore, dismissed J. Misc. No. 24 of 1999 by an order dated 28th May, 2008 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any right of pre-emption since the entire case plot has been transferred and not a portion or share thereof. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 2008 before the 4th Court of the Additional District Judge, Paschim Midnapore. The learned District Judge did not disturb the findings of the learned First Court. Additionally, he held that the opposite party/purchaser is not a stranger and the petitioner and the opposite party stood in the same position vis-a-vis the suit plot. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the learned 1st Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the instant revisional application.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Maity, learned counsel, forcefully argued that the entire case plot was not sold and only a portion thereof was sold. In this connection, she produced and relied on the sale deed of 1998. She submitted that the Courts below have wrongly held that the entire property was sold. According to her, there is sufficient evidence to establish that only a portion of the property was sold and therefore, the petitioner has right of preemption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. She submitted that the findings of the lower Courts are based on no evidence and/or complete mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and such findings are perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Mrs. Maity relied on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Firstly, she relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Bajrang Lal, 2014 4 SCC 693 . She relied on paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 of the judgment in support of her submission that there is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even on a question of fact, provided the Court is satisfied that the findings of the Courts below were vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing erroneous approach to the matter and findings recorded in the Court below are perverse. Secondly, she relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.F. Engineer v. Metal Box India Limited & Anr, 2014 6 SCC 780 . She relied on paragraphs 26, 36.2, 36.3 and 37 of the judgment in support of her contention that the High Court may in exercise of revisional jurisdiction interfere with findings of fact if the same are perverse and arbitrary. Finally, she relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 9 SCC 78 . She relied on paragraphs 9, 13, 15, 16, 32 and 43 of the judgment in support of her submission that the High Court in appropriate cases in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may examine the correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below and may re-appreciate the evidence. She submitted that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere as the judgments of the lower Courts suffer from the vice of perversity.