(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure P.9) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab whereby the order dated 12.07.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, order dated 03.4.2006 passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and the order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar were set aside and the matter has been remanded back with a direction to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jalandhar to inquire into the amount claimed by the petitioner, the fact as to whether the claim has been made within limitation and to pass necessary orders. In short, respondent No. 5 filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5250/- of the crop Hari 1999 to Hari 2002 of land measuring 1 kanal-8 marla belonging to him out of total land measuring 4 kanal 1 marla comprised in Khewat No. 77, Khatauni No. 106, Khasra Numbers 47//6/3 (0-8), 15/2 (0-4), 48//10/2 (2-16M), 11 (0-13M), situated in village Dugri, Tehsil and District Jalandhar Hadbast No. 337 as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and prayed for passing of a decree of ejectment against the petitioner for the land in question. It is averred in the petition that respondent No. 5 has alleged in the said suit that the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant, has no right to remain in possession of the land in question as he has trespassed the same without any right or consent. According to respondent No. 5, the petitioner did not file any written statement to his suit. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jalandhar-II and the appeal and revision were also dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively. However, second revision filed before the Financial Commissioner has been allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit under Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short "1887 Act") was not maintainable as it could have been filed only by the landlord against a tenant. In this regard, he has referred to Sections 14 and 77 (3)(n) of the Act. He has also relied upon the judgments reported as Raja Durga Singh of Solan v. Tholu and others, 1962 64 PunLR 837 and Anguri Devi v. Jasmer Singh, 2006 4 RCR(Civ) 707 (P&H).
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that Section 14 of the Act deals with special circumstance wherein the owner of the land can ask for mesne profits from a person, who is in unauthorized possession over his land and for that, he has right to file a suit in terms of Section 77 (3)(n) of the Act. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Pritam Singh v. Mehal Singh, 1986 RRR 574 and also a single Bench judgment of this court reported as Sarwan Singh v. Ajmer Singh, 1993 1 RRR 35.