B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) IN this revisional application the validity, legality and the propriety of the order dated 8th July 1991 passed by the collector under the W. B. Act. , XXIII of 1973 in R. A. L. A. Case No. 128 of 1990 is called in question. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are admittedly said to have purchased 15 decimals of lands in plot No. 1071, Plot No. 1071/ 2431 and Plot No. 1071/ 2432 of Mouza - Bar Bajitpur under Sutahata Police Station. It is claimed by the petitioners that following the execution and registration of sale deed they have been in possession of the suit land. The opposite parties 1 and 2 made an application under section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration Alienated land Act, 1973 for restoration of the lands. The said application was contested by the petitioner. On 29th July, 1985 the Special officer and the J. L. R. O. passed an order in R. A. L. Case No. 314/2 of 1979-80 directing inter alia restoration of the lands in question to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforementioned Order preferred an appeal to the collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, whereupon the appellate authority considering the contention of the appellants dismissed the same. The petitioners challenged the appellate court's order by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court after quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the courts below, remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the same on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant to the said order the appellate court again reiterated its finding on 8th July, 1991. The petitioners once again challenged the appellate court's order qua it was passed without considering the legal requirements under the provision of section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners has further advanced an interesting contention that the learned appellate court's order was based on parody of reasons. It is further contended that the appellate court has not considered either the evidence of the opposite parties or the petitioners while arriving at the conclusion that the consideration amount flowed from the document was for household expenses. It is further contended that the appellate court has not considered either the evidence of the opposite parties or the petitioners while arriving at the conclusion that the consideration amount flowed from the document was for household expenses. It was not considered further that there was a Clause for repurchase of the land train the petitioners. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel further maintained that the recitals of the document shows that the consideration amount was utilised for the purpose of purchasing land and also for repaying the loan of the society. So in such situation the appellate court's order for restoration of the land to the opposite party is absolutely illegal. ( 4 ) WHILE considering the application of the opposite parties under section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, it is necessary to quote the said provision. ". . . . 4. Procedure for effecting restoration of lands alienated under certain circumstances - (1) Where before the commencement of this Act [or between the date of such commencement and the date of the commencement of the "west Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land (Amendment) Act, 1980] a person being the transferor holding not more than 2 hectares of land in the aggregate (on the date of transfer) transferred the whole or any part of his land by sale to any person being the transferee then, if - (a) such transfer was made after the expiry of the year 1967 being (. . . .) in need of money for the maintenance of himself and his family or for meeting the cost of his cultivation, or. . . . " ( 5 ) IN order to get back the possession from the transferee it is sine qua non for the opposite parties transferor to satisfy the authority that money was raised for the maintenance of himself or his family or for meeting the cost of his cultivation. In this case though the recitals of the document unequivocally established that a part of the consideration amount was utilised for the purpose of purchasing lands but it cannot be said that the other part of the consideration was not raised for the maintenance of his family. Apart from this Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties. Apart from this Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties. Before the Special Officer the parties have led evidence which embodied that the consideration amount was utilised for the purpose of maintenance of transferor's family. ( 6 ) MR. Mahapatra, the learned counsel has, however, invited my attention that the recitals to the document have not established that the entire consideration was utilised for the purpose of maintenance of the transferor's family, even such evidence has been adduced by the opposite parry such testimony has to be completely ignored. While considering the merits of the aforesaid contention I may now quote the provisions of subsection (5) of section 4 of the Act which reads as follows :". . . (5 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any evidence adduced by a transferor varying, adding to, or subtracting from, the terms of the sale deed to prove the necessity or purpose for which the transfer was or the amount of consideration actually paid by the transferee to the transferor, shall be admitted. (Provided that if an application made under sub-section (1) has been rejected by the Special Officer only in consideration of the written recital of the purpose of transfer recorded in the sale deed over-looking the evidence adduced by the transferor, the transferor may, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land (Amendment) Act, 1980 apply afresh and thereupon the Special Officer shall proceed with the hearing of such application, consider such evidence as may be adduced by the transferor and the transferee and make such order thereon as he may deem fit.)" ( 7 ) MR. Banerjee further relied on a decision reported in 85 CWN at page 967 in the case of Fuljuri Devi v. State of West Bengal and Ors. In the decision cited supra it has been held as follows:" (I) When specific and definite allegations were made against the Block Development Officer, who was due to hear the proceedings and when Rule 10 of the West Bengal Alienated Land Rules make Provision for such causes, the Block Development Officer should not have heard the proceedings and opportunity should have been given to the respondents to establish the bonafides of their claim. (II) Sub-section (5) of section 4 of "west Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 the Act allows the applicant liberty to lead evidence, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of the sale deed to prove the necessity or purpose for which the transfer was made or the amount of the consideration actually paid and such evidence is admissible notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act. (III) In view of the scheme and object of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973, a liberal interpretation of the terms "land" should be adopted. Land as defined in section 2 (2) of the said Act means agricultural land and includes homesteads, tanks and waterchannel. (IV) All the members of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act need not be made parties to a suit against the society. The order of both the appellate tribunal and the trial court were set aside and the case remanded for retrial with liberty to the parties to lead evidence by an officer other than the one who made the initial order. " ( 8 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that there leaves no room for doubt that the transferor can lead evidence wherein adding to or subtracting from the sale deed to prove the necessity. Since the appellate forum has already arrived at the conclusion that the funds were raised for the domestic purposes, such observation should not be lightly brushed aside in revision. ( 9 ) MR. Banerjee, learned counsel further highlighted that there is no warrant in the instant case for the exercising revisional jurisdiction as there is no manifest by error or injustice has occasioned. I find there is substantial force in the aforesaid contention. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the case of the petitioners from any angle, I find there is hardly any substance in the case which too lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed but the circumstances without cost. Petition dismissed.