The Collector, before whom the application was filed, dismissed the application on the sole ground that it was barred by limitation.
The respondent landlords thereafter filed a revision application to the Financial Commissioner who set aside the judgment of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector.
He held that Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, prescribes a period of one year for filing an application for possession and that the said provision would govern applications filed under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act.
That proceeding occupied a total period of one year, two months and thirteen days.
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Collector which was allowed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who remanded the matter to the Collector for companysideration of the other questions involved in the application.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana to challenge the judgment of the Financial Commissioner but that writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
The civil companyrt dismissed the suit on the ground that it had numberjurisdiction to 5 entertain the suit since a suit for possession of agricultural lands had to be filed before the Collector under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
On July 29, 1971, the appellant filed an application tinder Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act for possession of the lands 10 from the landlords.
He brought a suit in a civil companyrt for possession.
V. Chandrachud, C.J. On November 5, 1969, the appellent, who is a tenant of certain agricultural lands was allegedly dispossessed by the landlords.
