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 o