2005 PLP 622 (CLC)

The petitioner has challenged order, dated 21-5-2002 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner for allotment of Horse Breeding Tenancy upholding the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan dated 25-5-1999 whereby the order of District Collector dated 9-8-1995 was set aside.

2. Ahmad Khan, father of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 was allotted land under Horse Breeding Tenancy Scheme in Chak No.23/10-R Tehsil and District Khanewal, who died on 29-6-1994 and on his death the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal recommended the name of respondent No.1 for allotment of the land being eldest son of the deceased. The District Collector, Khanewal did not agree with the recommendations of the District Remount Officer and selected the petitioner as successor of Breeder vide order, dated 9-8-1995. Respondent No.1 filed appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who accepted the appeal and reversed the order of the District Collector vide order, dated 25-5-1999. The petitioner challenged order of the Commissioner through revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, but the same was dismissed vide order, dated 2-5-2002. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the District Collector selected the petitioner after holding detailed inquiry at the spot and visiting the revenue estate and finding the petitioner eligible as he had been helping his deceased father in looking after the mare while the Commissioner gave preference to respondent No.1 being elder son of the deceased which has no legal force. It has been further argued that respondent No.1 is an old man and was also not residing in the village and has no experience, therefore, the Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue committed the illegality so the orders dated 25-5-1999 and 21-5-2002 be declared illegal and be set aside. He has placed reliance on Raja Muhammad Aslam v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar and others 2000 SCMR 531, Sher Bahadur and others v. Sher Zaman and others 1988 CLC 2084 and Ghulam Hussain Shah v. Member, Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab and others 1989 SCMR 1457 in support of his contentions.

4. The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Law Officer. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that order of the District Collector was self-contradictory as in para.6 he had stated that Abdur Rehman, respondent No.1 was absent on his arrival in the revenue estate while in para. 9 he has interviewed both the contesting parties. He has also argued that District Remount Officer had recommended respondent No.1 for allotment and his recommendation was ignored by the District Collector without assigning any reason; that Horse Breeding Tenancy is not inheritable but none of the legal heirs can claim the tenancy as of a right. He has placed reliance on Sub. Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 SC 435 and Khuda Yar v. Member, Board of Revenue and others 2003 MLD 1075 in this regard.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record as well as case-law referred to.

6. Admittedly, the District Remount Officer had recommended the name of respondent No.1 who is elder son of Ahmad Khan. The order of the District Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Multan Division after obtaining fresh report through Assistant Commissioner and according to recommendation of District Remount Officer. According to the detailed factual inquiry it was noticed that respondent No.1 was helping his deceased father. However, land was distributed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for cultivation purpose. The Commissioner as well Member, Board of Revenue selected respondent No.1 for allotment of the tenancy with cogent reasons by placing reliance on the report and recommendation collected from different sources. The eligibility of respondent No.1 was finally determined by the Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, the final authority in revenue hierarchy and in a similar case/situation Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1976 SC 435 at page 448, observed as under:-- Needless to add here that the recommendation made by the District Remount Officer was entitled to due weight, although it may not be the last word on the point. Under section 10(3) of the Act, the Collector, subject to the control of the Board of Revenue, was vested with the discretion to allot the tenancy. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court, in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 98 of the late Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, was not justified in interfering with the discharge of his functions entrusted to him under the law. In this connection, we need only refer to Muhammad Hussain v. Sikandar and others. It is well-settled that where a Court or a Tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines a question, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. It is wholly wrong to consider that the Constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because in its opinion the decision was wrong. Last, but not the least, we find that the High Court seems to have overlooked another aspect of this case. Clause (2) of the Statements of Conditions of this tenancy expressly lays down that no person shall be entitled as of right to become a tenant, that is to say, the Provincial Government hereby reserves to itself and retains absolute discretion in selection of tenants for land referred to in this statement . This would show that the question as to the section of suitable candidate for the allotment of a tenancy was purely internal with the Government and the respondent was not, as of right, entitled to lay her claim to the allotment. Following the above dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, I find no illegality or infirmity of the reasons in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the impugned judgment, therefore, the petition is dismissed having no force. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A-373/L Petition dismissed.