2006 PLP 769 (SCMR)

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.

This petition is directed against judgment dated 6-3-2003 of the Lahore High Court whereby Constitution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Sultan, father of the petitioner and respondent No.4, was the allottee of land under Horse Breeding Scheme who died in 1991. After his death the matter came up before the Revenue Authorities for re-allotment of the lease to anyone of his suitable legal heirs. The contest was between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The petitioner is son of Sultan from his first wife whereas the respondent No.4 is also his son from second wife. The Remount Officer after considering the case of the parties in comparison to each other came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 was more suitable for he had been dealing with the bound animals during the life time of his father and looking after the lease, therefore, he recommended him for allotment. On the other hand, the Collector came to the conclusion that two criminal cases had been registered against respondent No.4 and that the petitioner being senior in age had more experience, therefore, lease should be allotted to him in preference to respondent No.4. He made allotment in favour of the petitioner vide his order dated 12-10-1992.

3. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 was accepted by the Commissioner, Multan Division, vide order dated 9-5-1994. It was held that the recommendations of the Remount Officer were in favour of respondent No.4 which had to be taken into consideration before making allotment while determining suitability of one of the two heirs which the Collector did not do. The report of the Remount Officer was taken into consideration and it was found that respondent No.4 was more suitable for he had been acquitted from the two criminal cases registered against him and had also been issued covering certificates for his experience in dealing with the bound animals. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was dismissed vide order, dated 28-10-1988 against which Constitution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 6-3-2003 against which leave is sought.

4. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the question of suitability was a matter decision about which was to be made by the Revenue Authorities and if these Authorities had found one of the two legal heirs more fit and suitable as compared to the other, the same could not be substituted on merits in Constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that it was without lawful authority unless it was established that the decision of the Revenue Authorities was violative of any law on the subject to render it without lawful authority.

5. In this case both the Commissioner and Board of Revenue have found that the petitioner had no experience as compared to respondent No.4 in dealing with the bound animals, who had been looking after the lease during the life time of his father and that the Remount Officer had also recommended his name, who was the concerned person, who had to provide evidence about the suitability of the proposed allottee. Unless the Revenue Authorities dealing with the matter had found by express order that recommendations of the Remount Officer was not in accordance with law and based on cogent reasons, the same could be reversed, but in this case the Collector while passing order in favour of the petitioner did not bother to attend to the said recommendations. The recommendations made by the Remount Officer show that before making the same he heard all the concerned persons and found respondent No.4 more suitable. These recommendations were not found to be incorrect or improper on any ground by any of the Revenue Authorities rather the Commissioner and Board of Revenue agreed with him, therefore, it was not a case where orders passed by the Board of Revenue and Commissioner could legally be declared without lawful authority.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do ,not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./N-37/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.