( 1 ). IN this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners assail the legality of an order, passed by the Collector, North-West District, Delhi and that passed by the Financial Commissioner in appeal, whereby an order attesting a mutation in favour of the petitioners on the basis of a sale deed executed in their favour has been set aside and directions for taking possession of the land covered by the sale issued on the ground that the sale was in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the delhi Land Reforms Act. The facts giving rise to the controversy are few and may be stated at the outset:-

( 2 ). Late Shri Ram Mehar and his brother Kanwar Lai purchased a certain extent of land situate in different khasra nos. of Village Khera Khurd somewhere in the year 1941-42. In terms of a sale deed dated 7th August, 1996 Ram Mehar transferred in favour of the petitioners, land situate in khasras nos. 50/17 and 50/18 which had according to the case set up by the petitioners, fallen to the share of Ram Mehar in a family partition between him and his brother Kanwar Lal. The sale deed inter alia recited that Ram Mehar was the sole owner and in peaceful possession of property being sold under the same in favour of the petitioners. Shortly after the said sale, the Naib Tehsildar passed an order on 18th September, 1996 attesting a mutation in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the sale in question, respondents 4 to 8 filed original suit No. 827/96 for a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending trial before the competent civil court and in which certain interim orders of injunction also appear to have been passed. In so far as the mutation order passed by the naib Tehsildar was concerned, respondents 4 to 9 preferred an appeal against the same under Section 64 of DELHI LAND REVENUE ACT, 1954 before the collector, North West, Delhi, The, said appeal succeeded and was in terms of an order dated 9th November, 1998 allowed by the Collector holding that the mutation order was bad on account of procedural irregularities committed while passing the same and that the land in question having been transferred contrary to Section 33 of the Delhi I and Reforms Act, the same had vested in the Gaon Sabha. Consequential directions were issued to the BDO to take necessary steps for taking over the possession of the land vested in the Sabha.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the view taken by the Collector, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Financial Commissioner under Section 66 of the DELHI LAND REVENUE ACT, 1954 which failed and was dismissed by an order dated 23rd August, 1999. The Financial Commissioner affirmed the view taken by the Collector that the sale effected by Ram Mehar was indeed violative of Section 33 of the Land Reforms Act read with Rule 146 of the Rules framed thereunder. The present writ petition assails the correctness of the said two orders as already mentioned earlier.

( 4 ) APPEARING for the petitioners, Mr. Anand Yadav made a two-fold submission. It was in the first place argued that since the Colleptor was exercising his powers under Section 64 of the DELHI LAND REVENUE ACT, 1954 he was not competent to go into the question of validity of the sale vis-a-vis section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The jurisdiction to declare any such sale invalid in law was vested according to the learned counsel exclusively in the authorities under the latter Act and could be exercised by them in accordance with the procedure established for that purpose. The collector could not in an appeal preferred under a different statute assume to himself the jurisdiction to determine issues that would legitimately fall for the determination of the authorities under the Land reforms Act. In as much as the Collector had usurped the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Land Reforms Act, he had committed a mistake which vitiated the order made by him. The Financial Commissioner also having fal