IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8958 of 2009 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2011 Gurcharan Singh Bharti and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, whereby the title suit filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was decided against the petitioners; as well as the order dated 1.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 13AA (1) of the Act against the said order was dismissed. CWP No. 8958 of 2009 -2- During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that against the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 13AA (1) of the Act, the aggrieved party has remedy of revision before the Financial Commissioner under Section 13AA (2) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed the said remedy. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the remedy of revision. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if the petitioners file revision petition against the order dated 1.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, within a period of one month from today, the revisional authority is directed to consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 30, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE