Judgment PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing the order dated 24.04.2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the orders dated 08.01.1999, 25.10.2000 and 22.01.2000 passed by authorities below i.e. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Collector and Commissioner, respectively, have been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners purchased land measuring 14 kanals 12 marlas from Mulakh Raj son of Atto Devi vide registered sale deed dated 03.04.1995. In the sale deed it was specifically mentioned that possession of property comprised in khasra No.24/2 (6-12) and khasra No.17 (8-0) situated in village Gobind Majra, Tehsil, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, has been delivered to the petitioners and they are in cultivating possession. It is the case of the petitioners that when the sale deed was executed, although it is of share, but possession of specific khasra numbers in actual possession of the vendor has been delivered to them. It is further pleaded that not only this, even affidavit has been tendered by Mulakh Raj son of Atto Devi as well as Atto Devi – respondent No.5 herself. Considering these documents and the spot inspection, Assistant Collector corrected the khasra girdawri of both the numbers in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 08.01.1999 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter appeal was preferred before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved respondent No.5 preferred revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2000 (Annexure P-4). Against the orders passed by authorities below, respondent No.5 preferred second revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.04.2003 (Annexure P-6). It is further averred that civil litigation was also pending between the parties in which civil suit has been decided in favour of petitioners and appeal is pending. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that firstly in the second revision Financial Commissioner could only have set aside the orders if there was illegality and perversity in the orders. Secondly, already civil Court has recorded a finding which is otherwise binding on the revenue Courts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that firstly in the second revision Financial Commissioner could only have set aside the orders if there was illegality and perversity in the orders. Secondly, already civil Court has recorded a finding which is otherwise binding on the revenue Courts. It is further submitted that documents, which were the affidavits, have been specifically placed on record before the civil Court as well as before the revenue authorities, which have been taken into consideration in addition to spot inspection. Otherwise also, proceedings before the revenue authorities are summary in nature. If at all any party is aggrieved, same can be challenged by way of civil suit. It is further contended that principle of estoppel atleast will be applicable against the person when there are specific recitals with regard to handing over of the possession. It will not be binding on the cosharer who is not party to the proceedings or the sale deeds. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that sale deed is of only a share and he is not disputing with regard to change of khasra girdawri in the name of petitioners i.e. khasra No.24/2 (6-12), however, is contesting with regard to khasra No.17 (8-0). It is contended that Atto Devi has independent right and the affidavit has no effect on the rights of Atto Devi. It is submitted that Financial Commissioner has rightly observed that merely on the basis of spot inspection and without notice to Atto Devi correction in khasra girdawri cannot be denied. Once the parties have led oral evidence before the revenue authorities specifically Assistant Collector IInd Grade, then he was bound to decide as per evidence on the file instead of spot inspection. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, civil Court has decreed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001 (Annexure P-5), whereby respondents i.e. Mulakh Raj and Atto Devi have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioners. A specific finding has been recorded in para 7 of the judgment of the civil Court that affidavit Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 were executed by Mulakh Raj and Atto Devi stating that girdawri of suit land be changed in the name of Sat Pal Singh and Baldev Singh. A specific finding has been recorded in para 7 of the judgment of the civil Court that affidavit Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 were executed by Mulakh Raj and Atto Devi stating that girdawri of suit land be changed in the name of Sat Pal Singh and Baldev Singh. It is further mentioned that there was a compromie before the village panchayat, which has been placed on record of the civil Court as Ex.P-2 wherein it is specifically mentioned that in view of the compromise for effecting change in khasra girdawri, an amount of Rs.30,000/-has been paid to them. It is settled principle of law that findings of civil Court are binding on the parties. So far as civil appeal is concerned, if at all some finding is recorded in favour of the respondents then they will have every right to get the revenue record corrected, including khasra girdawri. When the findings of civil Court were subsisting Financial Commissioner was not competent to set aside those findings merely by observing that no notice was given to the parties. In view of this, writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24.04.2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, is set aside. However, it will not preclude the respondents to agitate all the points before the civil Court. Anything observed hereinabove will not effect the merits of the civil appeal. No order as to costs.