P L D (Rev (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI *SHAH‑Petitioner Versus FIDDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI *SHAH‑Petitioner Versus FIDDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mule‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mule‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI *SHAH‑Petitioner Versus FIDDA HUSSAIN SHAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, assisted by Ghulam Ali Alvi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
breeding grant ‑Sucreuion to--To be ordinarily decid ed on recommendation of District Remount Officer‑Rule of primogeniture not applicable. Held, that the rule of primogeniture had never been applied in the case of succession to a mule‑breeding grant. No person can be selected as a tenant unless the District Remount Officer pronounces him as suitable in all respects. A departure from this practice can be justified only for adequate reasons. Wajid Hussain, assisted by Malik Zia Ullah for Respon dent.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑‑The present appellant was given the mule‑breeding grant in dispute on the death of the previous holder of the grant (his father). The Collector selected him as the new tenant on the recommendation of the District Remount Officer. The present respondent was aggrieved with the Collector's order on the ground that he was the eldest son of the previous tenant and should have been preferred to the present appellant (his younger brother). The Commissioner accepted the appeal. The Commissioner did not consult the Remount Depart ment regarding the suitability or otherwise of the present respondent. The Commissioner's decision in favour of the present respondent is, therefore, defective. To my mind, the selection of a new tenant of a mule- breeding grant should be made in favour of the person whom the District Remount Officer recommends, unless the Colonization authorities find adequate reasons which would justify a departure from his recommendation. In any case, no person can be selected as a tenant unless the District Remount Officer pronounces him as suitable in all respects. The rule o primogeniture has never been applied to such cases. For the above reasons, I accept this appeal and direct that the grant should go to the present appellant in preference to the present respondent. A. H. Appeal accepted.