In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:28.8.2009 Preetpal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. N.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 4.2.1967 (Annexure-P.9) which is Form-K.6 issued under Rule 20-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (`Rules' – for short) and the order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure-P.10) passed by a Division Bench of the learned Financial Commissioners, Haryana. A further prayer has been made for directing respondents No.1 and 2 to produce the order of allotment in favour of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) as according to the petitioner he apprehends that the land has been allotted to respondent No.3 without any valid order of allotment by playing fraud on the State of Haryana. A further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from cultivating the land in question by respondent No.3 and also to recover the mesne-profit earned out of the land. The petitioner claims that he is a public spirited person and is C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [2] acting as pro bono publico. It is alleged that Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) has acted in collusion with Mallu son of Teja who was a big land owner of Village Kaluana. It is alleged that respondent No.3 was, in fact, a close confidant of Mallu son of Teja and on 22.4.1964 Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) filed an application against Mallu son of Teja Ram before the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dabwali seeking correction of Khasra Girdawri relating to land measuring 124 Kanals 17 Marlas in respect of crops 1961-62 to 1963-64. It was pleaded by Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) that he had been cultivating the said land continuously for the last 4-5 years but the entries in the revenue record wrongly continued to be recorded in favour of Mallu son of Teja. The land owner, namely, Mallu did not contest the said application and accordingly the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 7.5.1964 recorded the statement of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) wherein he stated that he has been cultivating the land since Kharif 1961 as a tenant. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 14.5.1964 (Annexure-P.4) ordered correction of Khasra Girdawri in favour of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) for the crops Kharif 1961 to Rabi 1964. After about 20 days Mallu land owner filed an application in Form-K.1 under Section 14-A(i) read with Section 19(1)(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (`Act' – for short) before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sirsa seeking ejectment of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) from the land measuring 123 Kanals 10 Marlas by pleading that he was a small land owner and wanted to take possession of the said land for self-cultivation. Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) did not file any reply to the ejectment application and compromised C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [3] with the land owner. He appeared before the Assistant Collector and his statement was recorded on 14.7.1954 wherein he deposed that Mallu was a small land owner and that he may be ejected from the aforesaid land subject to his resettlement on equivalent surplus area. The statement of the land owner Mallu was also recorded on 14.7.1964 wherein he stated that Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) had no other land except the land under his tenancy and he may be ejected after having been resettled on surplus area. The ejectment application filed by Mallu was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.7.1964 (Annexure-P.7). The ejectment of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) was subject to the condition that he would retain the possession of the tenancy area to the extent of 5 standard acres till he was re-settled on surplus area by 5 standard acres. In compliance to the aforesaid ejectment orders dated 14.7.1964 the contesting respondent got allotted land measuring 128 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Village Kaluana. Actual physical possession was delivered to him vide Rapat Roznamcha No.324 dated 14.6.1965 (Annexure-P.8). Besides, allotment certificate in Form-K.6 dated 4.2.1967 (Annexure-P.9) was issued in token of allotment of land. Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) is in possession of the land since then till date. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition No.689/2006-07 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana challenging allotment certificate in Form-K.6 dated 4.2.1967 (Annexure- P.9) issued in favour of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure-P.10) which is assailed in the present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [4] a complete fraud was played by Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) by first getting himself recorded as a tenant in land measuring 123 Kanals 10 Marlas in collusion with the land owner Mallu son of Teja in the crops Kharif 1961 to Rabi 1962 and thereafter within 20 days getting himself ejected from the said land by not contesting the application filed by Mallu son of Teja. It is submitted that Hukam Chand (respondent No.3), however, reserved his right to be re-settled on surplus land and thereby there was a collusion between the land owner Mallu and Hukam Chand (respondent No.3). It is also submitted that in terms of Rapat Roznamcha dated 14.6.1965 (Annexure-P.8) Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) was put in possession of different Khasra numbers of land which is prior to the letter of allotment issued on 4.2.1967 (Annexure-P.9). The numbers of the two, it is stated, are altogether different. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. It may be noticed that a Division Bench of two learned Financial Commissioners has gone through the entire matter and held that no fraud as is set up by the petitioner has been established. It was noticed that counsel for the petitioner had painted a picture of fraud and collusion between Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) and the land owner Mallu as also the revenue authorities to deprive the State of much needed surplus land that could be used to re-settle the people in the allotment. However, the Deputy District Attorney appearing on behalf of the State before the learned Financial Commissioners was unequivocal in saying that there has been no fraud committed. It was observed by the learned Financial Commissioner C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [5] that no doubt the facts of the transaction between the land owner and tenant appears conspicuously suspicious, however, it could not be flinchingly stated that the State had been deprived of surplus land because of this. It was observed that much more evidence was required to establish the suspicion that was raised is based on a string of seemingly odd transaction. Besides, after 40 years to draw a straight line of interference pointing to fraud and illegality based on a couple of in separate situations that conceding of each others stance by land owner and tenant and by odd invoking actions like non-matching of field numbers and discrepancy in area held by tenant and surplus area allotted to him, it cannot be said without hesitation that a wrong has been committed against the State. As far as the statement on Form-K.6 was concerned it was observed that the photo copy thereof was not reliable and the over-writing thereon left ample room for doubting its authenticity without more tangible evidence. The contention that numbers in the Form-K.6 did not match with the Patwari's Roznamcha entries, it was observed, is no clinching proof either in the absence of various other corroborating evidence such as whether the Form- K.6 was actually that of Hukam Chand (respondent No.3) given that the over-writing had been unaccounted for. The learned Financial Commissioner having gone through the contentions raised by the petitioner and considered them on merit, this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached by re-appreciating the evidence and material on record. The Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review is concerned more with the decision making process rather than the merits of the decision. In exercise of the C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [6] powers of the judicial review it is well known that it is to be shown that relevant and necessary material has been left out of the consideration process or some irrelevant material has been taken into account. Besides, the decision is not to be perverse or irrelevant. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioners having gone through the material on record and come to the conclusion that at the most it is a case of suspicion and not that of fraud, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. It may also be noticed that the petitioner is acting as pro bono publico, however, on being asked as to what is his contribution to the society, he has not been able to show any contribution made except stating that he is interested in the allotment of land to poor landless persons. This by itself is no ground to interfere in an order passed by the Financial Commissioner and that too at the behest of a person who has been unable to show his credentials to file a writ petition in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhartiya Homoeopathy College, Bharatpur v. Students' Council of Homoeopathy Medical College, Jaipur and others, (1998) 2 SCC 449 has observed that in order to invoke the public interest jurisdiction, the person must not be a mere busy-body and meddle some interloper. He is liable to show the credentials on the basis of which he can establish his bona fides to pursue such a remedy. No such bona fide has been pleaded in the petition nor answered during the course of hearing. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.W.P. No.13259 of 2009 [7] August 28, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No