P L D 1960 W (PLP)

(b) Horse‑breeding tenancy‑Grant of‑Ownership of appli cant in chak proved by entry in mutation register‑Revenue Officer not to concern himself as to how applicant acquired his title. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent. This, is a petition in revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 27‑12‑1958 by which he has upheld the order of the Collector, Montgomery, dated 30‑7‑1958 allotting to the Respondent square No. 66 in Chak No. 78/5‑R, Tehsil Montgomery, on horse‑breeding conditions. This square was previously allotted to one Capt. Muhammad Hussain on horse‑breeding terms but as he became an absentee on account of his service in the Army, his allotment was cancelled and the land resumed. Fresh applications were invited and the then District Remount Officer recommended the petitioner as his first choice. When the Collector examined the case he found that the petitioner was a minor on the basis of his school certi ficate. He, therefore, granted the tenancy to Respondent Abad Hussain. The petitioner went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner but the Additional Commissioner agreed with the Collector and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision application. The original recommendation of the District Remount Officer, dated the 29th April 1958, describes the petitioner as a real brother of the ex‑allottee, who has had some experience of looking after mares and is a resident of the Chak owning land there. The Respondent whose case was also examined was shown as No.

4. The Collector, however, asked the District Remount Officer to examine the cases of the other applicants also and record his opinion on their comparative suitability. By this time another Officer had taken over charge as District Remount Officer. In his report dated the 28th June. 1958, the new District Remount Officer, placed the petitioner as No. 1 and Syed Abad Hussain as No.

2. He more or less reiterated his predecessor's remarks about Abdul Baqi, but also commended Respondent as having knowledge of looking after mares and young stock and as owning land and residing in the same Chak. It was upon this reassessment that the Collector selected the Respondent for allotment of this grant. Two important issues have been raised in revision before me. On the one hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the opinion recorded by the Collector that the petitioner was a minor. He would like me to go by the District Health Officer's certificate to the effect that the petitioner was major, as against the evidence furnished by the school certificate by which the petitioner was 17J years on the crucial date, 30‑7‑1958, when the Collector passed his order. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies entirely on the school certificate for the petitioner's minority. I have no doubt thaw the school certificate, which is admissible in evidence, is a better testimony as regards age than a medical certificate which, in the nature of things, can only record an inexact and uncertain opinion. In any case, I see no reason to disagree with the two, Courts below on a concurring finding of fact. It has also been incidentally suggested on behalf of the petitioner that even if he was a minor on 30‑7‑58 he has now attained majority and should be preferred to the Respondent. I do not accept the point of view: where a question of eligibility is involved the facts and circumstances existing on the crucial date must be accepted as the basis for adjudication to the exclusion of any incidental consequences which might have flowed from mere efflux of time during the course of litigation. On the crucial date when the Collector passed his order, he could not have accepted a minor because any agreement with a minor or his acceptance of the terms and conditions of a grant would have been ab initio void and inoperative. Another contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner, which deserves to be noticed is that the Respondent acquired land in the Chak by a gift which is evacuee land and which he could not have obtained without the sanction of the Custodian e of Evacuee Property. I am not concerned with the nature of his title or the exact circumstances in which he acquired this land, I as long as the mutation entry in his favour stands in the revenue records his position as a land‑holder must be accepted. In the circumstances I hold that the Collector made the only proper choice that could have been made taking into consideration the recommendations of the District Remount Officer and the requirements of a tenancy on horse‑breeding conditions. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.