2019 PLP 97 (YLRN)

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

Undisputedly, Iftikhar Ahmed son of Nawab Din was a Horse Breeding Tenant over the subject land since long and lastly his lease period was extended from 01.07.2013 till 30.06.2018, who died during his term of lease, as such tenancy fell vacant, whose performance was considered more than satisfactory, therefore, as per prevailing statement of conditions and policy letter, the concerned authorities decided to devolve the tenancy rights to suitable legal heir of the outgoing tenant. In due process, District Remount Officer while performing his obligations after making requisite drill work and providing right of audience to all the concerned, considered Abdul Hameed, respondent No.2/son of the late tenant to be the best amongst the surviving legal heirs for the allotment of tenancy rights for a period of six years w.e.f. 14.01.2016 to 13.01.2022, whereas the petitioner/grandson of the original breeder was serialized next to him. The recommendations were tabled before the District Collector, who after evaluating the record and hearing the contestants synchronized it and allotted the vacant Horse Breeding Tenancy to respondent No.2 vide order dated 23rd May,2017. The petitioner being offended carried it in appeal before the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, who vide order dated 2nd November, 2017, declared the tenancy open for re-allotment while avowing both the contestants ineligible being absentee from the concerned revenue estate, Obviously it was not suitable to them, who assailed it before the learned Member, Board of Revenue through their independent R.O.Rs., who finally vide impugned order of 14th March, 2019 coincided with the conclusion of the District Collector and restored the allotment of respondent No.2, hence this as well as connected Writ Petition No.23864/2019 by the grandson of the original allottee. As both of these have arisen out of single impugned order and run among the same parties, hence for all intents and purposes, I proceed to decide the same jointly through this single judgment, however for reference, source point will be this petition.

2. Messrs Ch. Iqbal Ahmed Khan and Malik Muhammad Luqman, Advocates for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 is an old man whereas his client is a young chap; that the former is resident of Lahore city, whereas the latter is permanent resident of the village where property situates; that land in question was not being ploughed by respondent No.2 himself, rather it was leased out to someone else, as such he had no experience to run the tenancy; that no doubt respondent No.2 had obtained order for correction of entries of Khasragirdawri in his favour, but it being erroneous was wrongly considered in his favour and that petitioner remained engaged with his grandfather to run the affairs of the tenancy, as such having experience and longstanding association with the subject land, he deserved for its allotment. In contra, Malik Asif Iqbal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 refuted the submissions extended by the counterpart and while referring copies of Jamabandi, Khasragirdawri, affidavits of Lumberdar and affidavits of the widow, daughter and some other grandchildren of the late tenant submitted that it was his client, who fell with his father in giving the best results out of the tenancy and being the common choice of the Remount Officer and District Collector was rightly preferred over the petitioner, which cannot be interfered with, especially when it stood further congealed by the apex court on revenue/colony side. Mr. Asif Iqbal after drawing attention towards memo of parties of the petition in hand emphasized with great vehemence that while displaying the address of respondent No.2 in the concerned village, the petitioner in fact admitted that former was permanent resident thereof. He lastly pleaded that in register Khasragridawri, a servant of respondent No.2 for a limited period was entered being occupant of some land, which on having notice and tendering his affidavit had already been corrected and the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge it on any ground. Mr. Arshad Jahangir Jhoja, Addl. Advocate General for official respondents adopted the sayings of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and requested for the confirmation of the impugned order.

3. Arguments heard, record gone through.

4. There was no dispute to the effect that original allottee, predecessor of the parties had performed so well that after his demise, the tenancy was proposed to be governed by his suitable descendant. After scrutinizing the revenue record and considering the statements of the rest of the family members as well as that of village headman, respondent No.2 as per his experience and being nearer than the petitioner to the late tenant was rightly preferred over him. The Remount Officer being closely attached with the ground realities and performance is the salient figure to recommend the list of the suitable candidates. It is nowhere argued that he acted with mala fide, rather he was so fair that he also preferred the name of petitioner, but below to respondent No.2. Had there been any ineligibility on the part of the latter, he might be the one to be accommodated. In rebuttal to the documents (detailed in above lines) examined on behalf of respondent No.2, nothing was brought on record on behalf of the petitioner, as such District Collector the custodian of the State property being the next appropriate authority was left with no other choice to approve the recommendations of the Remount Officer and their selection has always been respected. See Bahawal Sher v. Sajawal Khan and 4 others (1990 SCMR 1139), Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Akram (2000 SCMR 533) and Noor Muhammad v. Member Board of Revenue and others (2006 SCMR 769).

5. The emphasis of Ch. Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the petitioner that respondent No.2 being an old person cannot run the affairs of the tenancy properly is not well founded. The latter is present in the court, who is stout, strongly built and appears as smart as the petitioner. In case of his poor performance, the tenancy will definitely become open and the petitioner as well as others may seek their interest/right, but at present merely for the reason that petitioner is younger in age was rightly ignored. The allegation qua absence of respondent No.2 from the village has already been abandoned by the petitioner while reflecting him in the memo of parties to be resident of the concerned revenue estate, besides that by bringing on record copy of electoral roll, utility bill, academic certificates, Khasragirdawri and Jamabandi, it has already been refuted that respondent No.2 was absentee. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that correction of the Khasragirdawri was maneuvered by respondent No.2 to get its benefit was not well founded. It was not the petitioner, whose name was scored out and that of respondent No.2 was entered, rather he who was eliminated from the entries, had himself sworn that he was wrongly mentioned being plougher and on his acknowledgment the entries were corrected in favour of its right holder, hence petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the correction.

6. The narrative of the above discussion is that impugned orders passed by the Remount Officer, District Collector and learned Member, Board of Revenue cannot be demonstrated to be either arbitrary, fanciful or capricious and cannot be substituted on merits in constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that these were passed without lawful authority to call for interference by this Court, as such Constitution Petitions in hand being meritless are accordingly dismissed. SA/M-110/L Petitions dismissed.