Pasayat, J.

1. Petitioners call in question legality of order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (L.R.), Balasore upsetting views of Revenue Officer, Soro and Officer on Special Duty (L.R.), Sadar Sub-Division, Balasore. Krushna Chandra Biswal, opposite party No. 3 herein lodged a claim that he was a bhag tenant under petitioners and sought for a declaration to that effect. On considering background facts with which we shall deal with infra, original as well as appellate authorities held that claim was untenable. Moreover, their conclusions were reversed by revisionai authority on the ground that they had not drawn proper conclusions,

2. A brief reference to the background facts as found by the authorities below is necessary for decision of the question whether revisionai order suffers from any infirmity. The case land was purchased in Court auction by one Mohan Nayak, uncle of petitioner No. 3. Case land originally belonged to one Bhagabat Biswal, a remote ancestor of opposite party No. 3. On 12-3-1934 delivery of possession was taken by Mohan. Sometimes in 1959, Krushna requested petitioners to sale the case land to him. Since they did not agree, there was disturbance in possession of the petitioners. Suit (T.S. No. 96/59) was filed by petitioners in the Court of learned Munsif, Balasore for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 22-12-1963, but appeal (Munsif Appeal No. 47/36 of 1963) was allowed by judgment dt. 16-1-1964. On 14-11-1965 there was again disturbance and on the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) amongst other offences, Krushna and 11 others arrayed as accused persons in GR Case No. 836 of 1965. They were convicted by judgment dt. 9-5-1968. A petition under Section 15(1)(d) of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, the Act) was filed on 23-11-1986, by Krushna claiming that he was inducted as a tenant twenty years back in respect of A.2.99 decimals of land. On 20-12-1985, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (in short, the Code) (Misc. Case No. 318/95) was initiated. By order dt. 5-7-1986 the Revenue Officer dismissed the application with the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. By judgment dt. 30-6-1987, the appeal was dismissed by appellate authority. Revisionai authority held that there was definite material to show existence of relationship as landlord and tenant, and such relationship has been established.

3. Mr. S. Misra (2), learned Counsel for petitioners has urged that conclusions of original and appellate authorities (done of elaborate analysis of evidence) did not need any interference and revisional authority has upset the conclusions without any basis. Mr. M.R. Panda, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Court would be slow in interfering with finding of facts, by forum authorised to record finding of facts.

4. Though scope for interference with conclusions on facts is rather limited, but where conclusions are perverse, unreasonable and are of such nature that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, there is certainly no bar on interference. It is established that the finding of fact is based on no evidence, or that the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonable person could have arrived at it. even if the evidence was taken at its face value or the finding is based on built on inadmissible evidence, which evidence if excluded from vision would negate a partys case or substantially discredit or impair it, or some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the opposite party has been overlooked, disregarded or wrongly discarded, interference is permissible. Where the forum below has misdirected itself in its approach, overlooked salient features, and evidence, misread evidence or proceeded to interpret a provision of law wrongly and therefore reached an erroneous conclusion, the Court has jurisdiction to brush aside that finding and examine the material for reaching its own conclusion. The Court can determine whether the findings support the decision and whether the findings themselves arc support- ed by substantial evidence on record. Findings of fact which are based on a patent misconception of a basic fact or law can be interfered with. If the finding is based upon no evidence or is based upon extraneous or irrelevant evidence or is otherwise patently unreasonable or perverse, it can be interfered with. Background facts as indicated above clearly shows that relationship between petitioners and opp. party No. 3 was strained and litigations between them having been spanning nearly three decades. In this background, it is to be seen as to whether opp. party No. 3 could have been inducted as a bhag tenant. Evidence of Krushna is to the effect that fed up with litigation, petitioners wanted to buy peace and, therefore, had inducted him as a bhag tenant. According to him there was a decision by Panch (village gentry) in village and pursuant to that decision, he was inducted as a bhag tenant. This has found acceptance by revisional Court. Coupled with it, he has referred to evidence of some witnesses examined to hold that payment of bhag was established. So far as decision of village gentry is concerned, it is not in dispute that there is no document, and names of persons who participated in the meeting has not been stated either by Krushna or any of his witnesses. Date on which it was held has also not been stated. Additionally, we find that conviction of Krushna in Criminal Court was much after the date he claimed to have been inducted as bhag tenant. No explanation is forth coming as to how petitioners allowed the criminal proceeding to continue, and did not compound the case if they wanted to buy peace. It is not in dispute that the offences were compoundable. Further, we find that evidence so far as payment of bhag is concerned is contradictory in nature. Evidence of witnesses examined to further Krushnas case lack credibility. First line of evidence of Budhiram Biswal is to the effect that he knew Krushna, and did not know present petitioners. He claims to have not only seen Chakradhar Nayak receiving paddy sheaves of the case land, but also to have seen said Chakradhar at the time of harvest. He has further stated that he had seen Krushna carrying bhag dues to the house of petitioners on the road. He has stated in cross-examination that he had seen payment of bhag dues. He has accepted that he had only heard that Krushna cultivated land of Chakradhar since twenty years and had seen Krushna cultivating the land of Chakradhar. These show the contradictions in his evidence. Ratnakar Routs evidence is to the effect that he cannot say as to how much bhag was being paid. He was 30 years of age when he deposed in the case and yet claims to have seen payment of bhag from the age of his discretion.

5. Another interesting feature which needs to be highlighted is that one Chaitanya who was admittedly dead ten years prior to the institution of case, has been impleaded as a party and in the claim petition averment was to the effect that he had also caused disturbance and prayer was to declare Krushna as bhag tenant under him. The very fact that Krushna does not know about death of Chaitanya though he claims to be a bhag tenant and paying rent one of the family members is indicative of falsity of his claim. These aspects were highlighted by original and appellate authorities to discard Krushnas case. Revisional authority did not discuss these aspects in their proper perspective and on the contrary placed burden on the petitioners to establish that there was no Panch decision. His approach is certainly erroneous. Foundation for Krushnas claim was decision in the Panch, and it was for him to establish that in fact a decision as claimed was taken. Instead of placing onus on him to prove that aspect, burden was cast on the present petitioners to prove negative, by the revisional authority. He did not consider the litigative history of the parties and decisions of the Civil and Criminal Courts. His order reflects complete non-application of mind.

6. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the revisional authority, and quash his order (Annexure-6). Orders passed by original and appellate authorities holding that relationship of landlord and tenant with petitioners has not been established are confirmed.

The writ application is allowed.

No costs.

P.C. Naik, J.

7. I agree.