Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1977, decided on 23rd June, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-2-1977 in W. P. No. 337 of 1977).

Paras. 23 & 25--Jurisdiction-Contention that while purporting to act under para. 23 of Regulation, Collector had no power to order ejectment of tenants nor authorized to appoint Tehsildar as Manager of Estate--Parties, however, agreeing to be satisfied if Tehsildar allowed to continue as Manager, provided petitioners put back in possession as tenants subject to their being liable to be ejected in accordance with law if Manager not satisfied with them--Appeal allowed, in circumstances

Ch. Abdur Rehman, Barrister-at-Law, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar All, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and 5.

Respondents Nos. 4 and 6 : Ex parts.

Date of hearing : 23th June, 1980.

.--This appeal relates to a dispute about the Management of an impartible holding of agricultural land situate within the municipal limits of Multan City. It is not necessary to mention the detailed litigation which has been going on between the parties, as the present dispute concerns the legality of an order made by the learned Collector under paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 on the 4th of January, 1977. One of the co-sharers, namely, respondent Muhammad Mohsin had complained that the other co-sharers as well as the tenants were not giving him his share of the produce. The Collector thereupon directed the Tehsildar to act as Manager of the land, and to have it cultivated on the basis of a Yearly lease. As a consequence of this order the present appellants, who were holding a joint tenancy under the three landlords were ejected in or about March, 1977.

The main contention on behalf of the appellants is that while purporting to act under paragraph 23 of the aforesaid Martial Law Regulation, the Collector had no power to order the ejectment of the tenants, nor to appoint the Tehsildar as the paragraph clearly stipulates that the management) should have been entrusted to one of the co-sharers.

Hafiz S. A. Rehman, on behalf of the Collector, concedes that para graph ' 23 does not envisage the ejectment of the tenants, which is governed by paragraph 25, and that the Manager should have proceeded under the latter paragraph if he was not satisfied with the performance and conduct of the appellants as tenants of the joint holding. Mr. Yaqoob Hussain Zaidi, appearing for the other two co-sharers, submits that the paragraph in question did not authorise the Collector to appoint the Tehsildar, and his choice should have been limited to one of the co-sharers.

Having made their respective positions clear, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that they would be satisfied if the Tehsildar is allowed to continue as a Manager, provided the appellants are put back in possession as tenants subject to their liability to be ejected in accordance with law, if the Manager is not satisfied with them. This suggestion emanating from the learned counsel is without prejudice to their submissions on the legal plane in regard to the interpretation of paragraph 23.

In view of the arrangements suggested by the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the Tehsildar may continue to act as Manager of this impartible holding, but he shall get the land cultivated through the appellants as tenants, subject to his right to move for their ejectment in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Regulation. The appeal is disposed of in these terms, with no orders as to costs. The appellants shall be put into possession on the expiry of the present agricultural year from the 1st July, 1980.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.