JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein purchased 10 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.958/2/1 and 958/3/1, kita-2, area measuring 2-9 bighas, but since on the basis of sale deed executed at that relevant time, entries were not being made in the revenue record, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein filed civil suit No.4/1/2011, titled as Sudershan Bhatia vs. Om Dutt alias Uma Dutt and others, seeking therein declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land, as detailed hereinabove. Aforesaid suit came to be partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. Since aforesaid judgment and decree never came to be laid challenge in the superior court of law, same attained finality and ultimately on the basis of the same, land in question, came to be mutated in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein vide mutation No.54, attested on 6.10.2015. On the basis of aforesaid entries in the revenue record, predecessor-in-interest and thereafter, respondent herein came to be declared as agriculturist in the State of Himachal Pradesh. After being declared as agriculturist in the State of H.P., respondent herein purchased some land in District Sirmour and Solan respectively, but Deputy Commissioner, Solan to ascertain correctness of the agriculture certificate adduced on record by the respondent herein, made a communication to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla because suit land, which was subject the matter of the civil suit, as detailed hereinabove, was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein in District Shimla. In the aforesaid background, District Collector, Shimla, initiated proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act’) against the respondent herein for vestment of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.40/40, Khasra No.230/193/1, Kita 1, area measuring 11-12 bighas & Khata/Khatauni No.41/41, Khasra Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Kita-6, measuring 11-8 bigha, situate in Mauja Sabowal, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on the ground that sale deed was executed on the basis of fraudulent agriculturist certificate. 2. Learned District Collector, Shimla after having heard the parties and perused the material available on record vide order dated 16.06.2016 passed in case No.04/13 of 2010 ordered vestment of the land detailed hereinabove in favour of the State. 3. 2. Learned District Collector, Shimla after having heard the parties and perused the material available on record vide order dated 16.06.2016 passed in case No.04/13 of 2010 ordered vestment of the land detailed hereinabove in favour of the State. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of vestment passed by District Collector, Shimla, respondent herein filed an appeal No.583 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. However, fact remains that Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide order dated 19.11.2018 dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid background, respondent herein approached Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Shimla by way of Revision Petition No.46 of 2019, which ultimately came to be allowed vide order dated 28.2.2020. In the instant proceedings, petitioner-State has laid challenge to aforesaid order dated 28.2.2020. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner-State as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, is that Financial Commissioner(Appeals)m while passing the impugned order dated 28.2.2020, has failed to appreciate the facts as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the Department suggestive of the fact that land was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein on the basis of fraudulent agriculture certificate. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that classification of land claimed to be purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein is “Ghasni” and since it was not under cultivation, the status of agriculturist otherwise could not have been claimed on the basis of such land by the respondent. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that when the land in dispute was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein no agriculturist certificate was attached. He further submitted that land purchased by the respondent herein in District, Sirmour on the basis of same agriculturist certificate, already stands vested in the State of H.P. However, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute factum with regard to passing of judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) Court No.1 Shimla in Civil Suit No.4/1/2011, titled Smt. Sudershan Bhatia vs. Om Dutt alias Uma Dutt and others, wherein admittedly predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein came to be declared owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.958/2/1 and 958/3/1, Kita 2 to the extent of 10 biswas. 5. Mr. G.D.Verma and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocates duly assisted by Mr. Sumeet Sharma and Ms. 5. Mr. G.D.Verma and Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocates duly assisted by Mr. Sumeet Sharma and Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocates, representing the respondent herein, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the same, rather same appears to be passed on proper appreciation of facts and law and as such, deserves to be upheld. While making this Court peruse orders dated 16.06.2016 and 19.11.2018 passed by District Collector and learned Divisional Commissioner, learned Senior counsel submitted that both the courts below rejected the claim of the respondent herein on the ground that she was unable to prove factum with regard to her being daughter of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, who was successor of late Sh. Daulat Ram. Mr. Verma further argued that factum with regard to respondent being daughter of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia and successor of late Sh. Daulat Ram stands duly established on record with the placing of relevant documents i.e. passport, graduation degree, copy of registered Will of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia and copy of death certificate of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia. While referring to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned Senior counsel, further submitted that presumption of truth is attached to aforesaid documents, especially when it is not in dispute that those were prepared by the Government Officials in discharge of their duties. Mr. Verma, learned Senior counsel further contended that once it is not in dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, namely Daulat Ram had purchased land in revenue village Trai of Sub Tehsil, Junga, District Shimla in the year 1962 and such claim was duly acknowledged by the Civil Court, while passing judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012, coupled with the fact that pursuant to aforesaid judgment and decree, mutation was attested in favour of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, petitioner-Department cannot be permitted to claim that subsequent purchase of the land in question made by the respondent was on the basis false agriculture certificate. Lastly, Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel submitted that once it is not in dispute that judgment and decree passed by Civil Court has attained finality, petitioner-Department is otherwise estopped from claiming that respondent herein is not the legal heir or successor of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, who had actually inherited the property in question from her predecessor-in-interest namely, Sh. Daulat Ram. 6. Verma, learned Senior Counsel submitted that once it is not in dispute that judgment and decree passed by Civil Court has attained finality, petitioner-Department is otherwise estopped from claiming that respondent herein is not the legal heir or successor of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, who had actually inherited the property in question from her predecessor-in-interest namely, Sh. Daulat Ram. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment and decree, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. It is not in dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein had purchased 10 biswas of land in revenue village Trai of Sub Tehsil Junga, District, Shimla in the year, 1962, but since pursuant to sale transaction made qua aforesaid land, no steps were being taken by the revenue authorities for attesting mutation in favour of the then purchaser, he filed civil suit No.4/1 of 2011 in the competent court of law, which ultimately came to be partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Civil Court was never laid challenge in the superior court of law, as a result thereof, same has attained finality. It clearly emerge from the pleadings as well as orders impugned in the instant proceedings that though at one point of time District Collector, Solan had advised District Collector, Shimla to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by trial Court, but in vain. Since pursuant to aforesaid judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012, mutation was attested in favour of processor-in- interest qua the land purchased by him in village Trai of Sub Tehsil Junga, District, Shimla and thereafter, Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, mother of the respondent herein became joint owner in possession, it is not open at this stage for the petitioner-State to claim that at no point of time, respondent herein had become agriculturist on account of purchase of land made by her predecessor-in-interest. 7. 7. Moreover, this Court finds that H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into force in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1974, whereas sale transaction was made by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein in the year 1962 and on the basis of the same, Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, mother of the respondent herein, became owner in possession. Since with the purchase of the land, which is admittedly agricultural land, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had became agriculturist in the State of H.P., no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent herein, while making subsequent purchases of land in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of her having become agriculturist on the strength of land purchased by her predecessor-in-interest in the year, 1962. 8. Moreover, this Court finds that District Collector and Divisional Commissioner while passing orders dated 16.6.2016 and 19.11.2018, which ultimately came to be set-aside with the passing of order dated 28.2.2020 passed by Financial Commissioner(Appeals) Himachal Pradesh had rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that at no point of time, she was able to demonstrate on record that she is the successor or legal heir of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, a successor of Sh. Daulat Ram, who had actually purchased the land in the year, 1962. By way of M.A. No.21 of 2020, which ultimately came to be allowed on 25.2.2020 by the Financial Commissioner(Appeals), respondent herein specifically adduced on record copy of passport, graduation degree, registered Will of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, and copy of death certificate of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, to demonstrate that Smt. Sudershan Bhatia wife of Sh. O.P. Bhatia was mother of the respondent herein. Since, at no point of time aforesaid documents adduced on record by the respondent ever came to be refuted by the petitioner-Department, same rightly came to be considered to be genuine by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Needless to say, presumption of truth is attached to aforesaid documents in terms of provision contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, especially when such documents were prepared by the Government Officials in discharge of their duties. Needless to say, presumption of truth is attached to aforesaid documents in terms of provision contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, especially when such documents were prepared by the Government Officials in discharge of their duties. Though, there appears to be no justification at this stage for this Court to comment upon the correctness of judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No.4/1 of 2011, but having taken note of the nature of the documents, this Court finds merit in the submission of learned Senior counsel representing the respondent that documents taken note by Civil Court carries presumption of truth in view of the provision contained in section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 4/1 of 2011 stands complied with, it is not open at this stage for the petitioner-State to claim that agriculturist certificate, if any, issued in favour of the respondent herein on the basis of aforesaid purchase made by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent is fake. Moreover, this Court finds that at no point of time, challenge, if any, was ever laid to the agriculture certificate issued in favour of the respondent herein by the State authorities and as such, petitioner-State is otherwise estopped from claiming that agriculture certificate adduced on record by the respondent at the time of purchasing land in District Solan and Sirmour was fake. 10. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that since classification of land has been shown as “Ghasni”, status of agriculture cannot be claimed on the basis of such land, but having perused provision contained under Section 2(7)(C) of the Act, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that “Ghasni” is considered as land for the purpose of determination of status of agriculturist. 11. Having perused material available on record, this Court is convinced and satisfied that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent i.e. Smt. Sudershan Bhatia was agriculturist and thereafter, respondent being successor of Smt. Sudershan Bhatia, also became agriculturist, if it is so, she was well within her rights to purchase the land in State of Himachal Pradesh on account of her being agriculturist in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 12. 12. Moreover, this Court after having gone through the grounds taken in the petition and hearing learned Additional Advocate General, is unable to find out perversity, if any, in the impugned orders and as such, otherwise scope of interference, especially while exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is restricted. Needless to say, High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can only interfere in the cases where there is patent error of law, which goes to the root of the decision. However, in the case at hand, there appears to be no perversity, arbitrariness and unreasonableness, rather Financial Commissioner (Appeals), while considering the appeal filed by the respondent afforded due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and passed order impugned in the instant proceedings on the basis of proper appreciation of facts as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ ble Apex Court in Rajendra Diwan versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and another (2019)20 Supreme Court of Cases 143, wherein it has been held as under:- “86.The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority. When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised “in the cloak of an appeal in disguise”. 87. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court does not re-assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of law.” 13. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 648, wherein it has been held as under:- “26. This being a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. 27. To the contrary, the limited scope of judicial review for which interference could have been permissible to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, malafides or perversity, if any, in the approach of the authority while dealing with the auction proceedings, was never the case of the respondent at any stage. The High Court has recorded a finding to the contrary that the appellants have failed to show any irregularity or illegality in the auction proceedings and in the absence whereof, the auction proceedings could not be held to be vitiated. The premise on which the High Court has proceeded in recording a finding, particularly, in the matters of auction of public properties is unsustainable in law and that apart, it is also not in conformity with the Scheme of auction of public properties as defined under Chapter III of Rules 1976. 14. The premise on which the High Court has proceeded in recording a finding, particularly, in the matters of auction of public properties is unsustainable in law and that apart, it is also not in conformity with the Scheme of auction of public properties as defined under Chapter III of Rules 1976. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned in the instant proceedings and as such, same is upheld. The present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications, if any. Interim order, if any, is vacated.