HAFEEZULLAH AND Others vs COLLECTOR, MULTAN AND Other
This appeal concerns a dispute over the management of an impartible agricultural holding within the municipal limits of Multan. The core legal question was whether the Collector, acting under paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, possessed the authority to eject tenants and appoint a Tehsildar as the manager of the land. The appellants contended that the Collector lacked the power to eject tenants or appoint a Tehsildar, arguing that management should have been entrusted to one of the co-sharers. Counsel for the respondents conceded that paragraph 23 does not authorize tenant ejectment, which is governed by paragraph 25, nor does it explicitly authorize the appointment of a Tehsildar. The Court, based on an agreement reached between the parties, held that the Tehsildar could continue as manager, provided the appellants were restored to possession as tenants, subject to potential ejectment proceedings under paragraph 25. The Court directed the restoration of the appellants' possession as tenants, emphasizing that any future ejectment must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in paragraph 25 of the Regulation.
- Does paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 authorize a Collector to eject tenants from an impartible holding?
- Can a Collector appoint a Tehsildar as manager of an impartible holding under paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Under which provision of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 must proceedings for the ejectment of tenants be initiated?
- Paragraph 23, Martial Law Regulation No. 115
- Paragraph 25, Martial Law Regulation No. 115
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.