2009 PLP 2441 (YLR)

ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.

On 8-8-1992, Horse Breeding Tenancy of Chak No.62/5.L Tehsil and District Sahiwal fell vacant upon death of Mian Rehmat Ullah son of Bulanda, Horse Breeding Tenant of the Chak. Upon satisfactory record of the deceased breeder District Remount Officer heard all his legal heirs and forwarded a report on 21-10-1992. Widow of the deceased allottee and five daughters surrendered their right of tenancy in favour of Sikandar petitioner and there remained only two contestants of the right. Respondent No.1 Nausher Ali claimed the right being eldest son, however, District Remount Officer recommended petitioner Sikandar on the basis of his association and experience in the management of bound animals. District Collector, however, did not agree with the recommendation and vide order dated 7-12-1992 considering Nausher Ali the most suitable and deserving candidate granted him the tenancy rights for six years w.e.f. 8-8-1992. Order of the District Collector was assailed in appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner Multan Division vide order dated 25-5-1994 which was further assailed in revision before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed by Member Judicial-II Board of Revenue vide order dated 25-5-2000. Concurrent findings of the three Courts in revenue hierarchy are under assail in this constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that family members of the deceased tenant not only surrendered their rights in favour of the petitioner but also supported him for grant of tenancy rights, therefore, he was rightly recommended who was best Judge for this recommendation but this aspect of the case was illegally ignored by the forums below. In support of this submission learned counsel relied upon "Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 SC

435. He argued with vehemence that forums in the revenue hierarchy have miserably failed to appreciate that during life time of his deceased father petitioner was appointed as Sarbrah of the tenancy to which respondent No.1 never objected during the life span of his father. He added that it is established from the material on record that respondent No.1 did not maintain cordial relationship with his family members, therefore, there was no occasion for him to participate in the affairs of horse-breeding and he had no know how in the field. The learned counsel argued with vehemence that petitioner had been acquitted in the two criminal cases which were registered against him with mala fide, therefore, mere registration of cases could not operate as disqualification against the petitioner. In support of his contentions he referred to Ghulam Nabi v. Ghulam Qadir and others 1986 MLD 1940; Mst. Amina Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle 1 Lahore and 3 others PLD 1980 Lah. 571, Khalid Malik and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1991 Kar; 1, Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Pannah PLD 1994 SC 162, Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236, Muhammad Fazil v. Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf and another 1985 CLC 614, Muhammad Akhta: v. Abdul Aziz and 2 others PLD 1996 Lah. 232, Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 and Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior MBR N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 4 others PLD 1991 SC 531.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, at the very outset while questioning the locus standi of the petitioner and objecting maintainability of the constitutional petition - referred to section 2 of the Remount Breeding Scheme to argue that Provincial Government reserves the right and retains absolute discretion in the selection of the tenants for the lands and no person is entitled as of right to become a tenant. While banking upon Mehar Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State PLD 1989 Rev.3 and Muhammad Shafique v. Rashid Sultan 2002 YLR 2426 he submitted that recommendations by the District Remount Officer were not binding on District Collector who could come to a contrary conclusion after duly considering such recommendation. Learned counsel referred to Khuda Bakhsh v. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and 3 others 1976 SCMR 26 to contend that grant or refusal to grant tenancy for horse breeding is entirely within the discretion of revenue authorities and subject to incidence of appeal or revision to higher authorities matter hardly one for interference by this Court. Lastly he stood behind the impugned orders and fully supported the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and visited the case-law with their able assistance.

5. Excepting the District Remount Officer revenue hierarchy concurrently concluded against the petitioner. Recom mendations of the District Remount Officer are not binding upon the District Collector in view of the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Shafique v. Rashid Sultan (supra). Precedents referred to on behalf of the petitioner do not advance his cause. Grant or refusal of tenancy for horse breeding, even otherwise, comes exclusively within the discretion of revenue authorities and findings recorded by them cannot be interfered with in view of the dictum of law enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1976 SCMR 26 (supra). Above all, provisions of section 2 of the Remount Breeding Scheme stipulating that selection of the tenants for the lands is the prerogative and absolute discretion of Provincial Government knocks down the very substratum of this petition.

6. As a sequel of the afore-said discussion this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S-139/L Petition dismissed.