ORDER 1. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Gurgaon vide order dated 20.6.2002 decreed the suit for declaration of title filed by respondents no. 1 to 8/plaintiffs and ordered that the suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.6.2002 appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant gram panchayat was allowed by the Collector, Gurgaon on 18.2.2003 and ordered that the suit land bearing Khewat No. 156 Khatoni No. 597 vests in the gram panchayat being shamilat deh and remanded the order to the extent that the land bearing Khewat No. 156 Khatoni No. 598 to 656 can the claimed as per provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In exercise of his revisional jurisdiction the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division vide order dated 20.11.2003 set aside the Collector’s order dated 18.2.2003 and upheld the A.C. Ist grade’s order dated 20.6.2002. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner this revision petition has been preferred. 2. The applicants/respondent No.9 and 10 filed an application for impleadment as respondents in the present revision petition and the same was allowed on 2.8.2005. Further the applicants/respondents no. 11 to 19 also filed an application for impleadment as party and they were impleaded as respondents on 13.12.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.9 to 19 raised preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintainable because the parties were litigating over the matter under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as it stood before the amendment and the parties availed the remedy under the unamended Act by fling an appeal and revision. The remedy of revision has already been availed and now the second revision under the amended Act could not lie. The petitioner could have filed writ petition against the order of Commissioner in the Hon’ble High Court. To support this contention the learned counsel referred the judgment given in C.W.P. No., 2002 of 2005 decided on 24.8.2007. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that after the order of Commissioner passed under unamended provision the Civil writ petition is maintainable and not the revision before the Financial Commissioner Concluding his preliminary objection he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition on this ground alone. 4. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that after the order of Commissioner passed under unamended provision the Civil writ petition is maintainable and not the revision before the Financial Commissioner Concluding his preliminary objection he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition on this ground alone. 4. In reply the counsel for the petitioner argued that under section 13AA (2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 Financial Commissioner has revisional powers. He continued to argue that every Review of Revision before the Financial Commissioner is a second revision. He further argued that even suo motu powers have been conferred upon the Financial Commissioner under the aforesaid Act; that amendment in procedural statute is retrospective; that court should take judicial notice of change in law during the pending of proceedings; that provisions pertaining to revision by the Financial Commissioner provided in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are pari materia with those under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. He further argued that section 13A and 13AA were inserted by Haryana Act. No.9 of 1999 and as per these provisions only the Collector was competent to adjudicate the title of the suit land on the date (20.6.2002) when the Assistant Collector 1st Grade adjudicated the matter. As such the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are of no consequence. Therefore the whole proceedings in the present case are nullity. Concluding his reply it he prayed the present revision petition is maintainable and may be decided on merits. 5. I have heard the counsels for the parties at length and gone through the record. There is no provision for second revision under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. As per sub-section (2) of section 13AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 the revisional powers can be exercised by the Financial Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of appellate powers under sub-section(1) of section 13AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. As per sub-section (2) of section 13AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 the revisional powers can be exercised by the Financial Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of appellate powers under sub-section(1) of section 13AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 13B(2) of the Act and not in exercise of his appellate powers under sub section (1) of Section l3AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Thus the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Gurgaon Division does not come within the purview of the aforesaid sub-section of Section 13AA of the aforesaid Act and consequently this revision petition is not maintainable under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section 13AA of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This view has further been fortified by a judgment dated 24.8.2007 given by Hon’ble High Court in a similar case i.e. CWP No.20032 of 2005 titled as Ashvarya Estate Private Ltd. versus Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and Others whereby it has been held that since the remedy of revision had already been availed and no further remedy was provided in 1961 Act, the only remedy was available by way of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above mentioned discussion the present revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated to all concerned. ------------------------