JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Kishan Lal, on 18-5-72, was permanently allotted 47 Rights of un-command land situated in Square No. 57/ 350 and 57/359 in Chak 7-STG, P.D. 81608. A complaint was made against Shri Kishan Lal that he is not the resident of Rajasthan and has sold this land without taking prior permission from the Collector and, therefore, the allotment of the land made in his favour may be cancelled, Notices were issued to Kishan Lal and after holding an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Suratgarh Camp cancelled the allotment made in favour of Kishan Lal and ordered for resumption of the tenancy as he has contravened the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act and the breach committed by him is not capable of rectification. He, however, decided the question of bona fide residence in favour of Kishan Lal. 2. Dissatisfied with the order dated 21-12-76 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, cancelling the allotment and ordering for resumption of the tenancy. Shri Kishan Lal filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Additional Commissioner Colonisation cum Revenue Appellate Authority, R.C.P., Bikaner (Camp Suratgarh), by its order dated 12-1-79, dismissed the appeal filed by Kishan Lal. The Second appeal filed by appellant Kishan Lal against this order, also, did not find favour with the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 8-11-82. 3. Kishan Lal thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioner Kishan Lal on the grounds that (i) the transfer of the land made by the petitioner was inconsistent with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which cannot be recognised and the Authorities were right in resuming the tenancy; (ii) the matter relates to the disputed questions of fact and, also, a plea which has not been taken in the Courts below and which cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in the writ petition; and (iii) the Deputy Commissioner colonisation has the power under Section 13(2) to resume the land. It is against this judgment dated 18-4-83 passed by the learned single Judge that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. 4. It is against this judgment dated 18-4-83 passed by the learned single Judge that the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record that the appellant-petitioner sold the land in question to Shri Budh Singh or any other person and no notice under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act was issued to the appellant before cancelling his allotment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that sufficient material was available on record to prove that the sale was complete and it was effected by the appellant himself and no case for interference is made-out and even from Annexure-3, the possession of the respondents over the land in question stands established. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The equitable jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and not an appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court does not sit or act as an appellate or revisional authority over the action of the Board of Revenue or the Revenue Appellate Authority. The judicial review of the order can be made, not against the decision of the lower Court but against the decision-making process. The High Court, though has ample power but is not expected to re-appreciate the primary or prospective facts which have been found established by the facts-finding authority, as the High Court is not sitting in an appeal or revision over the decision of the fact-finding authority. 8. It has been held by the Supreme Court in : H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Suppl (2) SCC 312 that "judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Courts sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." 9. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court is not expected to find-out the correctness of the decision. It is not the correctness of the decision that has to be looked into but it has to be seen whether the decision-making process was correctly observed by the lower Court and the action taken by the Board of Revenue and the Courts below is procedurally correct or ultra vires? 10. There is no procedural error committed either by the Board of Revenue or by the Revenue Appellate Authority. So far as the facts found by the Board of Revenue and other Revenue Authorities and the conclusions arrived-at by them are concerned, they cannot be said to be erroneous. Ail the three statutory authorities, i.e., the Board of Revenue, the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, found that the appellant-petitioner has transferred the land to one Shri Budh Singh. This finding of fact is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence. The factum of transfer stands established from the statement of the appellant-petitioner himself which he made before the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation on 4-9-95 during the enquiry itself. This admission of the appellant-petitioner that he took some money from Budh Singh and Budh Singh is cultivating the land, finds corroboration from the statement of Om Prakash - the Patwari of the area, the entries in the Girdawari relating to Samvat Years 2031, 2032 and 2033, the statement of Vijay Singh s/o Budh Singh (the transferee) who have, also, admitted this fact. There is, also, the evidence of Mst. Ram Pyari - the sister of the appellant but her evidence has not been believed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the relations between Mst. There is, also, the evidence of Mst. Ram Pyari - the sister of the appellant but her evidence has not been believed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the relations between Mst. Ram Pyari and the appellant, who are sister and brother, were strained and the proper appreciation of the evidence has been made and her evidence was rightly disbelieved by the lower Courts. But so far as the evidence of Om Prakash Patwari, Vijay Singh s/o Budh Singh and the statement of the appellant-petitioner himself made on 4-9-75 as well as the entries made in the Girdawari clearly establish that the possession over the land in question was transferred by the appellant-petitioner in favour of Budh Singh. All the Revenue Authorities were, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that appellant-petitioner Kishan Lal parted with the possession of the land without obtaining prior permission of the Collector concerned and, thus, contravened the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The findings arrived-at by the Revenue Authorities, I therefore, do not require any interference. 12. The next question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale can be proved only by producing the registered sale-deed and as the sale-deed has not been produced, therefore, the sale cannot be said to how have (Sic) established.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance. A transfer of tenancy right to possess and cultivation can be proved by ocular testimony and by other attending circumstances and it cannot be said that unless the sale-deed is produced the transfer of tenancy right, as aforesaid, cannot be established. From the evidence produced by the parties during the enquiry, the alienation of the land made by the appellant in favour of Budh Singh in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, thus, fully stand established. 13. The next question which requires consideration is : whether any notice under Section 14 of the Act was issued to the appellant-petitioner before ordering for cancellation of the allotment of the land. For coming-up to this conclusion, the Revenue Appellate Authority found that in the original file, at page 12, a notice under Section 14 of the Act issued to Kishan Lal is there on record. For coming-up to this conclusion, the Revenue Appellate Authority found that in the original file, at page 12, a notice under Section 14 of the Act issued to Kishan Lal is there on record. Thereafter, after holding enquiry, the authority came to the conclusion that the appellant has contravened the condition of Section 13 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, also, came to the conclusion that the breach committed by the allottee (appellant-petitioner Kishan Lal), is not capable of rectification and, therefore, he ordered for resumption of the tenancy. Before passing the order, the notice under Section 14 was issued to the appellant and the order was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, who has the power of the Collector, was, also, competent to pass such order. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no notice under Section 14 of the Act was issued to the allottee, is, therefore, bereft of any substance as the notice issued to the allottee-appellant under Section 14 of the Act is already on the record of the enquiry at page 12. 14. In this view of the matter, the judgment passed by the learned single Judge does not require any interference. 15. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed.. *******