P L D 1962 W (PLP)

The square in question was granted to the Khan on Horse Breeding conditions. On his death the District Remount Officer interviewed all the four sons of the deceased and recommended the respondent. The Collector on recommendations of the District Remount Officer/Colony Assistant allotted the square to respondent Shahamad, the eldest son of the deceased, who was maintaining the mare, which was found in a satisfactory condition. The Collector found no reason to change his previous orders and rejected the review application which had been put in before him; whereupon Chaughatta and Shera step‑brothers of Shahamad, went in revision before the Additional Commis sioner, who confirmed the Collector's order. Hence, this second revision. The petitioners' main plea is that under section 19‑A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, the tenancy should devolve on heirs in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law and that on the death of their father, the tenancy should have devolved upon them accordingly to their Shariat shares. The aforesaid section 19‑k runs as follows:‑ "When after the coming into force of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1951, any Muslim tenant dies, succession to the tenancy shall devolve on his heirs in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), and nothing contained in sections 20 to 23 of this Act shall be applicable to his case." The contention of the petitioners would be maintainable in accordance with the above section, provided the tenancy was heritable. This is not the position in the case of Horse Breeding tenancies which are granted for the duration of 4 years at a time and are renewed under clause (4) of the Statement of Conditions notified under Notification No. 2838‑C, dated 10th July, 1942. Clause (25) ibid provides that those tenancies "shall determine‑ (b) on the decease of the tenant." This means that the tenancy is not heritable, but reverts to Government on the demise of the tenant. As an act of grace, however, the Collector can select the most suitable heir in terms of letter No. 868‑C, dated 19‑2‑1952. This argument has, therefore, no force. The second argument advanced is that the petitioners were in fact maintaining the mare and the mare is still with them and they are still in physical possession of the land. The Collector has gone into this point on the basis of the D.R.O's report and the Commissioner has also concurred in these findings. I am, therefore, not prepared to re‑open this question. There is, therefore, no force in any of the grounds of revision which is dismissed in limine. S. B.