JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. This writ application as directed against a judgment and order dated 4.4.94 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in annexure 'c' to the writ application thereby and whereunder he allowed an appeal filed by the private respondent No. 4 from an order dated 18.8.92 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing an application for restoration filed by the private respondent under the provisions of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.) 2. The said application was filed on the ground that a deed of sale was executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner on 4.6.68 and whereas in the said deed of sale consideration amount was shown as Rs. 1,000/- according to the respondent No. 4, he received only a sum of Rs. 700/-. It was contended that there was also an oral agreement of repurchase. 3. The application for restoration was filed by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that he said the same for meeting the expenses as the same was necessary to maintain his family; whereas the case of the petitioner is that such sale deed was executed with a view to develop his business. By reason of an order dated 18.8.92 the respondent No. 3 dismissed the said application filed by the respondent No. 4 under section 4(4A) of the said Act. The said respondent preferred an appeal there against which was marked as R.A. Case No. 33 of 1992. The respondent No. 2 by a judgment and order dated 4.4.94 allowed the said appeal. 4. The order impugned in this writ application clearly goes to show that the respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind as regards duties and functions of an appeal court. It is now well settled that by reason of various decisions of this court as also the Supreme Court of India that an appeal court does not normally interfere with the findings of fact unless such findings are against records or some evidence had been admitted in evidence contrary to the provisions of law or in a case where such judgment is based on inadmissible evidence. The respondent No. 3 rightly framed 5 issues which are as follows:- "(1) Whether the prayer for restoration of alienated land was filed before the prescribed authority and within the prescribed period as laid down in this Act, or not? (2) Whether the suit land was actually transferred by the transferor being in need of money for maintenance of himself and his family or meeting the cost of his cultivation or not? (3) Whether there was an oral agreement for reconveyance of the suit land between the transferor and the transferees, or not? (4) Whether the transferees are entitled to have the benefit of section 4(10) of the amended Act, or not? (5) Whether the transferor is entitled to have an order of restoration of the suit land, as prayed for, or not? 5. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the respondent No. 4 however, while deciding issue No. 2, the said respondent, inter alia, came to the finding that the word 'want' has different sense to different persons of the society, and he illustrated the same. The respondent No. 4 had according to the said respondent, not specifically stated the want of livelihood. It was further noticed that he although admitted that he had been carrying on business, had not produced his licence despite an assurance given in this regard. He had not been able to prove the rate of market value of and per bigha or per cattah. 6. P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that there was a quarrel with the opposite party transferees regarding possession of plot No. 1310/1779 of Mouza-Khetrapal, and a diary in the local police station was lodged against the opposite parties. P.W. 2 was found to be an interested witness who had also stated in his examination in chief that the transferor transferred and suit land for want, but in cross examination admitted that he did not keep any information about the family of the transferor at that time, and even at present he also does not keep information, and thus according to the respondent No. 3, how could he say that the transferor transferred the land for want? It was further Found that there was no corroboration in the evidence of P.W. s and there had been serious contradiction, whereupon a finding of fact was arrived at that transferor did not transfer the suit land actually in need of money for maintenance of himself and his family. 7. On issue No. 3 finding of fact of the Respondent No. 3 was that the said respondent did not find any consistency in the evidence of P.W.s 1 to ....... 8. As regards issue No. 4, he recorded a finding that he was not inclined to believe that the transferees actually lived in same mess with his father, who was then living. Moreover, no such substantial evidence, was also adduced to made the said respondent believe that the suit land was actually the principal source of their family for livelihood. 9. A bare perusal of annexure 'B' to the writ application would clearly go to show that the respondent No. 3 had discussed and analysed the evidence of witnesses examined before him in great details. He had the occasion to look to the demeanour of the witnesses. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 in the impugned order dated 4.4.94 discussed the matters in a slip shoe manner. With regard to issue No. 2 which was a vital issue, he merely took up one sentences from the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 as regards business carried on by the respondent No. 4 and came to the conclusion that as per provision of section 4 of the Act, alienation was made by the transferor being in need of money for the maintenance of himself and his family. As regards issue No. 3, only on the basis of evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, without discussing the evidence adduce on behalf of the writ petitioner and without assigning any reason whatsoever, and further without analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that there was an oral agreement for reconveyance. 10. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind and without following the principles which were required of him, as indicated hereinbefore. 11. Mr. 10. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind and without following the principles which were required of him, as indicated hereinbefore. 11. Mr. Chatterji appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, however, has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak vs. Executive Magistrate & Ors., reported in 1994(1) CHN 320 , wherein it has been held that the writ court cannot exercise appellate power over the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority in seeking to scrutinise the correctness or otherwise of findings of fact arrived at by such appropriate authority upon consideration of all material facts. The said decision not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case the question as to jurisdictional error now stands widened. If a statutory authority takes into consideration irrelevant fact and fails to take into consideration relevant fact, an error on the fact of the record is committee (See De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th Edn. page 136). It is further well known that a statutory authority must pose unto himself the correct question so as to acquaint himself with the fact of the matter with a view to answer the jurisdictional question, failing which he would be guilty of commission of misdirection in law. In the instant case, the appellate authority as noticed hereinbefore, not only failed to follow the well settled principles of law regarding the power of appellate authority, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Chokai Construction reported in AIR 1988 SC 1845 which has been followed by the Supreme Court and this court in several decisions. It is further well settled that the matter relating to exercise of jurisdiction has been widened in view of the decision in Anisminic Ltd. vs. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported in (1969) 2 A.C. 147 and R. vs. Corwell C.S. Exparte Huntington, reported in 1992 (2) All. E.R. 566, which has been upheld in appeal in 1994 (1) All. E.R. 694. As the appellate authority has committed the aforementioned errors of law, which would go to the root of the jurisdiction, in the opinion of this court a case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. 12. For the reasons aforementioned this application is allowed. E.R. 694. As the appellate authority has committed the aforementioned errors of law, which would go to the root of the jurisdiction, in the opinion of this court a case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. 12. For the reasons aforementioned this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.4.94 as contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application is set aside and respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 afresh, and pass an appropriate order in the accordance with law. Application allowed.