A. L. Vaidya, J.—Through the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 6th April, 1993 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue and Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The said order runs as under: "6-4-1993. In this case Settlement Officer Shimla District is directed to inspect the spot personally in the presence -of the parties and to send his report to this Court before 29th June, 1993 that who is in actual cultivating possession of land Khasra No. 232/ 210 (old) area measuring 5.13 Bighas, Case to come up for hearing on 29th June, 1993."

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the proprietary rights of the land under reference were granted in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and in this behalf mutation was sanctioned in the year 1988 (Annexure P-l). Present respondents 1 and 2 preferred au appeal against the said order of mutation before the Collector, who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21st February, 1989 (Annexure P-3). Annexure P-2 is the grounds of appeal taken before the Collector. It was pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the respondents (petitioner and respondent No. 4 in the present petition) were neither in possession nor they were tenants of the land in question. It was also averred that the respondent and their father had admitted in the civil suit filed by him that they were out of possession of the land. That civil suit was numbered as 95 of 60 and was withdrawn with a liberty for filing a fresh suit for possession against the present respondents 1 and 2.

3. The aforesaid order of the Collector was assailed in a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition on 4th November, 1991. Thereafter, respondents preferred second revision petition 237 of 1989 before the Financial Commissioner, who passed the order under reference.

4. The aforesaid order passed by the Financial Commissioner which has been assailed in the present proceedings, pertained to have an inquiry conducted through Settlement Officer, Shimla, regarding the possession of the land in dispute

5. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and various documents filed in the present proceedings have also been perused,

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted two fold arguments, in order to assail the order under reference passed by the Financial Commissioner. First being, that the order being without reasons is to be ignored and, secondly, within the revisional jurisdiction the Financial Commissioner has no authority to collect some evidence by way of an inquiry inasmuch as under the law only legality of the order under reference has to be seen and, therefore, order under reference passed by the Financial Commissioner is not sustainable in law,

7. On the other hand, it has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the contesting respondents 1 and 2 that it is not so simple a matter as has been tried to be submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, the reply-affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, which is accompanied by documents referred therein, clearly reflected the actual position of the case.

8. On the basis of the record put up before this Court the case has a long history. Land under reference was purchased by respondents No. 1 and 2 who became the owner of the same. The present petitioner is stated to be the Revenue Officer and, according to the respondents, he has with the help of his colleagues procured the aforesaid mutation granting proprietary rights in his favour especially when the land under reference was in actual occupation of the respondents 1 and 2, and entry of tenancy in favour of present petitioner and respondent No. 4 was a proper entry and they have nothing to do with the land in question.

9. It has come on record that respon