Sunil Gaur, J.

1. The finding returned in the impugned order of 27th March, 2012 by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi against the petitioner is as under:-

‘I have gone through the revision petition, the reply of the respondents No. 3 to 7, as well as the comments of ‘the Consolidation Officer. I have also gone through the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 18.03.2008, and also the impugned order. The respondents no. 3 to 7 have been clamoring for years for a public right of way in order to access their holdings, and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order of 18.03.2008 granted them liberty to approach the Consolidation officer with a prayer for granting them this public passage. It transpires that the petitioner has encroached upon land which belongs rightfully to the respondents, and they have voluntarily surrendered this land which was under the occupation of the petitioner, in order to have the public passage to their holdings. The right of the respondents to ask for a public passage as a means of egress and ingress to their holdings cannot be questioned. Nor can the Consolidation officer be faulted for providing them with such a passage. He was merely acting in terms of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Simply because the petitioner had mistakenly encroached upon the land of some-one else, does not mean that it becomes his by efflux of time. He had made a mistake and now he must accept his mistake with good humour and gracefully. His contention that he was not heard cannot be accepted, as the Consolidation Officer had issued notice to him. The impugned order is unexceptionable in all respects as it has discussed all aspects of the issue. The revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.’

2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order of 18th March, 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 3774-78/2006 while balancing out the equities, had issued the following directions:-

‘(i) Liberty is granted to the petitioners to initiate proceedings against owners/bhumidars of khasra No.80/16/2 or to file an application before Consolidation Officer of village Bijwasan for providing alternative access/road to the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners may file an application/representation in this regard within a period of three weeks from the date judgment is pronounced. The Consolidation Officer or the revenue authorities will process the application/representation filed by the petitioners expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months thereafter. The demarcation reports dated 5th August, 1997 and 26th September, 1997 will be binding on the authorities.

(iii) Each of the five petitioners will pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 school for use of the passage till alternative passage is made available to the petitioners. Petitioners will not be entitled to carry out any construction or install any gate on the passage but the petitioners; their employees/servants will be entitled to use the same. If the aforesaid arrangement is continued beyond six months, then each of the five petitioners will be liable to pay enhanced amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent No.2 school. In case there is delay beyond a period of 12 months the respondent No.2 will be entitled to file an application in this Court for further enhancement of the said amount.’

3. Relevantly, petitioner herein was not a party in W.P.(C) No. 3774-78/2006 wherein the aforesaid directions were issued. The precise contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that it is nobody’s case that excess land had been allotted to the petitioner and notice under Rule 16 of Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 was ever issued to the petitioner before withdrawing the excess land from the petitioner’s holding. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that the finding returned in the impugned order of petitioner encroaching upon the alleged excess land in question runs counter to the provisions of Sections 84 to 86 of De