JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2014. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Financial Commissioner.

2. The brief facts which can be culled out from the pleadings and various documents placed on record are that one Shri Anant Ram was the recorded owner of land measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas bearing Khasra No.41/12 situated in village Nangli Poona, Delhi. Out of the said land of Shri Anant Ram 1 bigha and 6 biswas of land was said to have been sold to Shri Ram Lal Aggarwal father of appellant No.2 on 29.08.1989. During the consolidation proceedings the ownership of appellant No.2 was reduced to 1 bigha and 4 biswas (hereinafter referred to as the “said land”). Shri Ram Lal Aggarwal then sold the said land to his son appellant No.2 on 28.5.1990. Thereafter appellant No.2 on 24.3.2005 sold the land vide Power of Attorney to appellant No.1. Respondent No.2 claims that his father was in possession of the said land and on the death of his father on 22.9.2002 respondent No.2 claims to have come in possession of the land.

3. Respondent No.2 moved two applications dated 20.12.2004 and 12.01.2005 for recording of his cultivatory possession over the said land before the Tehsildar. Claiming that the Tehsildar was not dealing with these applications, respondent No.2 filed a Writ Petition before this High Court being W.P.(C) No.7435/2005. This Writ Petition was disposed off on 25.10.2005 with a direction to the Tehsildar to decide the applications as per law. The applications were dismissed by the Tehsildar vide orders dated 22.6.2006. In the meantime, another application was also filed by respondent No.2 for recording of cultivatory possession in relation to crop period Kharif for 2006 for the said land. This was also dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 13.8.2007.

4. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed an appeal under section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner against the two orders passed by the Tehsildar dated 22.6.2006 and 13.8.2007. The Tehsildar after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that there is no logical basis or reasoning in the impugned orders and set aside the orders dated 22.6.2006 and 13.8.2007 of the Tehsildar. A direction was passed that the name of respondent No.2 be entered in the Khasra Gidawaris for the year 2004 (Rabi and Kharif), 2005 (Rabi) and 2006 (Kharif) with respect to the said land falling in Khasra No.41/12 village Nangli Poona, Delhi.

5. The appellants thereafter filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner under section 66 and 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 15.12.2009 held the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.4.2008 as unsustainable and set aside the same.

6. The respondent No.2 filed the present Writ Petition No.3316/2010 challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner. This Writ Petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2014 quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 15.12.2009 and upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.4.2008.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is entirely erroneous. It is stated that vide the impugned order the court has converted itself into an appellate court reappreciating the evidence led by the parties and has come to a different conclusion on facts which was impermissible while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on Hari Vishnnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Others, AIR 1955 SC 233 and Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash 2004 (3) SCC 682 to contend that the jurisdiction of the High Court was not available to exercise any reappreciation or revaluation of docume