under the definition of `tenant', therefore, petitioner is entitled to be considered for allotment. In the meantime, the sons of the petitioner also became major and claimed individual allotment in pursuance of the correction of khasra girdawari made in their favour. In pursuance of order dated 29.10.1982 (Annexure P/3), the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cumAllotment Authority, Naraingarh found that 34 kanals 16 marlas of land has been allotted to the private respondents. This allotted land also included the area which has never been declared surplus. The prescribed authority recorded a finding that allotment was wrong because the allotted land could not be included in the surplus area, therefore, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the private respondents vide order dated 22.06.1989 (Annexure P/5), without considering the case of the petitioner on merit as it was decided by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner felt aggrieved being a tenant over the land. The owner of the land was willing to sell the land to the petitioner. Against that, private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Collector, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 01.12.1992 (Annexure P/6). Private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 filed revision petition before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 08.04.1993 (Annexure P/7), the Commissioner accepted the revision and order dated 22.06.1989 of the prescribed authority and order dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Collector have been set aside. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner filed second revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner in the second revision did not look into the glaring irregularities committed by the Agrarian authorities
