CR No. 1850 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 1850 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.11.2009 Jagdish and others .....Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat Jandli Khurd and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advocate for respondent no.1. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CR Nos.1850 to 1853 of 2009, as they arise from the same dispute. The facts, however, are being taken from CR No.1850 of 2009. The petitioners challenge an order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Commissioner,Hisar Division, Hisar. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), praying that land measuring 26 kanals 8 marlas, bearing Khasra Nos.132/19/2 (2-8), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 22(8-0), situated in village Jandli Khurd is the ownership of the proprietors as it is described in the revenue record as “Mustarka Malkaan Jumla Va Deegar Hakdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Rakba”. In addition, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CR No. 1850 of 2009 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of an ad-interim injunction to restrain respondent no.1 from interfering in their possession. The Collector, District Fatehabad vide order dated 19.1.2006 allowed the application for grant of an ad-interim injunction. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner,Hisar Division, Hisar. Vide order dated 28.11.2008, the Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 19.1.2006 and vacated the stay. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as admittedly, the petitioners are in possession, the Commissioner, should have in all fairness to the pending lis dismissed the appeal and maintained the injunction. Counsel for respondent no.1, however, submits that merits of the case apart, the present petition is not maintainable. The remedy, if any of the petitioner, is to file petition before the Financial Commissioner, who is empowered by the provisions of Section 13-AA(2), to examine the legality or proprietary of any proceedings or orders passed under Section 13-AA(1) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 13-AA of the Act reads as follows :- 13-AA(2) - The Financial Commissioner may, suo motu or on an application made to him by any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1) call for the record of any proceedings pending before, or order passed by the Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings or order and pass such order in relation CR No. 1850 of 2009 3 thereto as he may deem fit :- Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed unless he has been afforded an opportunity of being heard.” Section 13-AA(2) of the Act, confers a supervisory jurisdiction upon the Financial Commissioner to either suo motu or upon receipt of an application, examine the correctness of any order passed or proceedings pending before the Commissioner. The expressions used in Section 13-AA (2) are wide enough to include challenge to an interim order or orders passed in appeal against an interim order. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application/petition before the Financial Commissioner under Section 13-AA(2) of the Act. In case, the petitioners file an application/petition before the Financial Commissioner within one month, their dispossession shall remain stayed upto the filing of the application/petition or for a period of one month, whichever is earlier in time. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 3.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE