P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
GHULAM GHAUS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | GHULAM GHAUS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, 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 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (GHULAM GHAUS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Horse‑breeding grant‑Recommendation of District Remount Ofcer, if not manifestly untenable should be given full weight.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUR RAHMAN‑Respondent Revision No. 308 of 1958‑59, decided on 19th April 1960, District Montgomery. Horse‑breeding grant‑Recommendation of District Remount Ofcer, if not manifestly untenable should be given full weight. There are two revision petitions against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Multan whereby he has dismissed the appeals of the petitioners in respect of a horse‑breeding grant. The facts are quite simple. The tenancy formerly belonged to one Nasir Ahmad Saeed but it was resumed for breach of conditions. Fresh applications were invited and the District Remount Officer after examining all the applicants made his recommendations in his report dated 8‑9‑
58. He recommended three persons and arranged them in order of preference. He also mentioned the names of 1.8 other applicants whose merits he found to be inferior. The Collector after examining the whole case selected the District Remount Officer's nominee No. 2, respondent Abdul Rehman. He owns land, is a Lambardar of the Chak and also has a fair knowledge of horse‑breeding. So far as the remarks offered by the District Remount Officer about his three nominees are concerned, I have no doubt that the Settlement Officer selected the best man. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not summoned or questioned about their merits and their cases were not adequately considered by the Collector, I do not accept this contention. Apparently the Collector after examining all these cases came to the conclusion that there was no point in summoning those persons whose merits were rated so low by the District Remount Officer. The settled view of this Board has always been that the recommendations of the District Remount Officer should be given full weight until they are found to be manifestly untenable. These grants are purely dis cretionary, as envisaged in para 2 of the Terms and Conditions, and I do not see any reason why I should disagree with the concurrent finding of the three officers including the Commissioner. The petitions are rejected. K. M. A. Petitions rejected.