P L D 1959 W (PLP)

It is not clear from any report that the record of the deceased grantee was bad or unsatisfactory, if so, what were the reasons on which this opinion was based. The parties should have been given an opportunity to explain whether they considered the Remount Department's opinion on the subject to be adequate or not. Similarly, if the District Remount Officer mentioned person to be too old to look after a mare properly, the Remount authorities considered be a very deserv ing person to get a mule‑breeding grant. This desire of theirs should not be allowed to override the reasonable rights of the other party. The Collector has to consult the Remount Department but should not accept every statement of the Remount Department blindly. The discretion rests with the Collector and he should exercise it after making sure of the position. Mahmood Ali Kasuri for Petitioner. Abdur Rahim for Respondent No.

2. There is some confusion regarding the statement of conditions which apply to the mule‑breeding grants of the type involved in this case. One set of conditions was published with the notification No. 2033‑C, dated 20th June 1924, and this set has been printed in the Punjab Colony Manual Supplement No. IV, revised edition of 1940. The question of the disposal of the grant on the demise of the grantees is dealt with in clause 17 of this notification. Another set of conditions was published on 1‑7‑42 (notification No. 2838‑C). This set superseded a set of conditions which had been issued with notification No. 2965‑C, dated 22‑7‑

41. It is assumed that the 1941 statement had superseded the 1934 statement or some other statement which had so superseded the latter. The disposal of the mule‑breeding grant on the demise of the tenant is dealt with' in clause 25 of the 1942 statement. This last mentioned clause does not grant any preference to the heirs of the deceased. There is, however, a clear direction in a letter issued by Government in February 1952, to the effect that in the case of a tenancy falling vacant on the death of a lessee with a good horse/mule breeding record, it should continue to be allotted to the heirs of the deceased in preference to any other applicant. Counsel for respondent No. 2 says that the direction issued by Government does not take away the discretion vested in the Collector under clause 25 of the 1942 statement. The direction of the Government is not in consistent with the discretion awarded in clause 25 and would be considered binding by a Revenue Officer who exercised delegated powers on behalf of Government. The direction is based on public policy and there is nothing unjust about it. The Commissioner heard the first appeal in this case in July 1955, and remanded the case for a fresh decision in the light of the said direction of Government. The Collector re‑allotted the grant to respondent‑No. 2 on 16‑11‑55 and it appears that he did not look into the record of the deceased grantee. When the second) appeal went before the Commissioner, an effort was made to look into this question, but I find that the examination of the question has been on mistaken lines and has altogether been inadequate. It is not clear from any report that the record of the deceased grantee was bad or unsatisfactory, if so, what were the reasons on which this opinion was based. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 should have been given an opportunity to explain whether they considered the Remount Department's opinion on the subject to be adequate or not. Similarly, if the District Remount Officer E mentioned these two persons to be too old to look after a mare properly, the Remount authorities considered respondent No. 2 to be a very deserving person to get a mule‑breeding grant. This desire of theirs should not be allowed to override the reasonable rights of the other party. I am not in a position to decide whether any rights have in fact been overridden. My inability is due to the fact that in my opinion the relevant question has not been examined in sufficient detail. I, therefore, consider it proper that a full inquiry on this point should be held by the Collector who should decide whether any change in the present grant is justified. I am not cancelling Ali Muhammad's grant at present but the cancellation by the Collector will be permissible by way of review on the ground that I could have altered the position in revision. The Collector has to consult the Remount Department but should not accept every statement of the Remount Department blindly. The discretion rests with the Collector and he should exercise it after making sure of the position. The petition for revision will be considered to have been accepted to the extent indicated above. The case will stand remanded to the Collector for further decision after hearing the parties in respect of the matters which may come to notice as a part of the further inquiry. K. M. A. Revision accepted.