Horse Breeding Scheme

2026 MLD 844 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 24Horse Breeding SchemeViolation of tenancy conditionsFactual controversy

Petitioner was one of the legal heirs of deceased tenant of the land who was denied extension of tenancy in his favour on the allegations of violation of tenancy conditions

Validity

Allegation against petitioner, who was son of the previous lessee, pertaining to lifting of soil from leased land could not, in the absence of a proper inquiry, be treated as a conclusive violation of tenancy conditions

Petitioner's stance was that was soil was removed only to level the land and improve irrigation after getting permission, which required factual verification at the spot, particularly when the record showed that no on-ground inquiry was ever conducted before recording findings adverse to petitioner

Petitioner also claimed that period of lease was extended and the same was evident from the letter addressed by District Remount Officer, Sahiwal to the District Collector

It was for such precise reason that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), while allowing appeal rightly remanded the matter to District Collector with the direction to obtain a site report from Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), in presence of legal heirs of the deceased tenant and other relevant persons so that the issue of alleged violation could be determined on sound factual footing

Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, while passing order in question failed to appreciate such legal and factual position and did not advert to mandatory procedural requirement of conducting proper factual inquiry before upholding resumption of tenancy, thereby committing material illegality

High Court restored order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as the same reflected correct legal approach and ensured adherence to the policy governing Horse Breeding Tenancies as well as principles of natural justice

High Court directed District Collector, to conduct a comprehensive and factual inquiry into the allegations raised against entitlement of petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1921 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.10Horse Breeding SchemeTenancy rights, grant ofNon-speaking orderEffect

District Collector granted tenancy rights in favour of petitioner after inviting applications but Member Board of Revenue remanded the matter for grant of tenancy rights through open auction

Contention of petitioner was that impugned order was without reasons

Validity

Courts below had recorded concurrent findings with detailed reasoning

Member Board of Revenue had not recorded reasons while passing the impugned order

Appellate or Revisional forum was to consider the reasons recorded by the forum below and then deliver a judgment by supporting reasons

Impugned order was non-speaking which could not be deemed as lawful or a result of proper exercise of jurisdiction

Matter was remanded by the High Court to the Member Board of Revenue with the direction to attend reasons prevailed upon the forum below for upholding the claim of petitioner and examine policy or rules for lease of property

Impugned order passed by the Member Board of Revenue was set aside with the direction to decide the matter in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2014 MLD 313 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 24Notification No. 4292-83-2537-CL-1 dated 9-8-1983Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionHorse Breeding Scheme

Petitioner, allottee of government land under the Horse Breeding Scheme, impugned order of Revenue Officer whereby directions were given to the effect that rectification according to Notification No. 4292-83-2537-CL-1 dated 9-8-1983 be got effected of the lease of the petitioner and in case of failure of the petitioner to do so, the land be resumed in favour of the State

Validity

Petitioner could not have been condemned for miscarriage/abortion of his mare and could not be penalized for ill-fated acts of nature

Observation that the previous conduct of the petitioner did not inspire confidence was not sufficient to pass the impugned order

Notification No. 4292-83-2537-CL-1 dated 9-8-1983 was not applicable to Horse Breeding Schemes

Under S. 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 penal action in form of fine up to rupees 10,000 was clearly provided

Impugned orders were, therefore, illegal and accordingly set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2011 YLR 3079 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.10Horse Breeding SchemeAllotment of landPrinciples

In allotment of such tenancy, the District Remount Officer, being legal representative of the Army Remount Department be consulted and due recommendations should be given weight before allotment of tenancy.

1989 SCMR 1457 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.10 & 19-AHorse Breeding SchemeSuccession

Dispute between two brothers over succession in respect of land under Horse Breeding Scheme-Petitioner was an employee of Government Transport Service and remained on duty whereas respondent had left service before the death of his father and was assisting him in cultivation of lands

Respondent was also a permanent resident of relevant Chak

Contention of petitioner that he was an ex-serviceman and had to be given preference over respondent under the circular by Board of Revenue would not prevail with the Supreme Court as such contention was not raised before the lower Tribunal but was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court

Supreme Court declined interference.

1986 MLD 2391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.161Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Horse Breeding SchemeGrant of leaseConstitutional jurisdiction, exercise of-Resumption of tenancy from petitionerPerson applying for grant of leaseLocus standi of

Mere filing of 'application for grant of lease, held, would not invest such applicant with any interest for which he could claim protection

Such person would have no place within proceedings between petitioner and Collector as by that time he had not acquired anything except his unilateral- filing of such application-Such applicant though made party by Commissioner had no locus standi to be made a party and to carry on appeal against order of Commissioner to Board of Revenue

Appeal before Board of Revenue being incompetent, order passed thereon, was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Board of Revenue in consequence of appeal having been incompetently filed.