The Financial Commissioner is a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and the disobedience of his orders can be punished as contempt by the High Court.

GURDEV SINGH, J.

1. In this petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act Chhotta Singh and others complain of disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 15th December, 1965 and 11th February, 1966 in Civil Writ No. 2955 of 1965, as well as of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 5th November, 1965 passed in proceedings between the parties under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The matter came up before my learned brother Bedi J., who being of the opinion that the question whether the Financial Commissioner is a Court subordinate to the High Court, the contempt of which can be punished by this Court was not free from difficulty, referred the case to a larger Bench by his order dated 14th of November, 1966.

2. The petitioners, Chhotta Singh and others, were settled under the orders of the prescribed authority (Naib-Tahsildar) dated 21st December, 1962 on some of the lands that had been declared surplus in the hands of Gurdial Singh. respondent No. 3, a big landowner in village Bugran, District Bhatinda. An appeal against this allotment of land to the petitioners was preferred by Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 5. who claimed to be a tenant of the land in question under Gurdial Singh. The Collector, Bhatinda decided this appeal on 5th of. August, 1965 and remanded the case for fresh decision. Thereupon the landowner Gurdial Singh (respondent No. 3) dispossessed the petitioners and obtained possession of the surplus area that had been allotted to them by the prescribed authority. The petitioners went up in revision against the Collectors order and the petition was accepted by the Financial Commissioner on 5th of November, 1965. The Financial Commissioner held that Gurcharan Singh was not a tenant of Gurdial Singh and thus not entitled to any part of the surplus area. As a result of this finding, the Financial Commissioner, holding that Gurdial Singh had wrongly taken possession of the surplus land directed that he should be immediately dispossessed and the surplus area originally allotted to the petitioners should be restored to them. The actual possession, however, could not be delivered to the petitioners as crops were standing therein. Before the compensation for those crops, which was assessed by the Gram Panchayat, could be deposited by the petitioners, Gurcharan Singh (respondent No. 5) questioned the validity of the Financial Commissioners revisional order dated 5th November, 1965 by means of a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution (Civil Writ No. 2955 of 1965). On admission of the writ petition Gurcharan Singh moved for staying the operation of the Financial Commissioners order, on which Narula, J., on 15th December, 1965 directed; "Status quo regarding possession of the petitioner to be maintained" pending notice to the opposite party. As at that time the possession of the land in dispute was with Gurdial Singh and not Gurcharan Singh and thus the order operated to the benefit of Gurdial Singh and not that of the writ petitioner Gurcharan Singh, the present petitioners applied for the clarification of the order. Thereupon Dua J., after hearing the parties counsel passed the following order on 11th February, 1966 :-

"After hearing both sides it is agreed at the bar that the stay order of this Court should only be operative as against dispossession of Gurcharan Singh petitioner in the writ petition. The actual physical dispossession of Gurdial Singh landlord is not covered by this writs stay order. It may however, be clarified that actual physical dispossession of Gurcharan Singh is quite clearly being stayed by this order pending the disposal of the writ petition.............."

3. The petitioners allege that despite this order Gurdial Singh, in conspiracy with Pritam Singh (Respondent No. 1), S.I. Prem Singh (Respondent No. 2) and with the assistance of Bakhtawar Singh and Gurcharan Singh, (Respondents 4 and 5 respectively) reaped the Sarson crop despite the fact t