GHULAM HUSSAIN ALIAS MULAZAM HUSSAIN Versus HASSAN AKHTAR
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order dated 5‑4‑1971 of the Commissioner, Multan Division by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner regarding allotment of state land situated in Chak No. 79/12‑L Tehsil and district Sahiwal under the Cattle Breeding Scheme.
2. Briefly the facts are that a cattle breeding tenancy situated in Chak No. 79/12‑L Tehsil and District Sahiwal fell vacant on the demise of one Wallan Rani as she had no heir to, inherit the tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands. Act. The allotment of the tenancy was therefore to be made to some suitable person. The following candidates applied for its allotment:--
(i) Ghulam Hussain (petitioner)
(ii) Hassan Akhtar (respondent)
(iii) Muhammad Sharif
(iv) Afsar Ali------
(v) Biwan---------
(vi) Sayee Muhammad ------------------------ Sons of Sher Muhammad
(vii) Barkat Ali s/o Ali Mohd.
3. The District Remount Officer vide his letter dated 13‑5‑1970 addressed to the Collector, Sahiwal recommended in order of priority the following three persons :‑
(i) Ghulam Hassan (petitioner)
(ii) Hassan Akhtar (respondent)
(iii) Muhammad Sharif.
The rest of the candidates were not considered suitable as they did not possess the required knowledge of animal breeding. The case for allotment of the disputed tenancy was examined by the Collector. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sahiwal vide his order dated 4‑1‑1971 found Hassan Akhtar, respondent to be most suitable person than the other applicants and made allotment in his favour. Ghulam Hussain being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, who rejected the same vide his order dated 5‑4‑1971. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner Ghulam, Hussain and respondent Hassan Akhtar and Malik Muhammad Ahsan who appeared for Afsar Ali who wanted to be impleaded as a party to the revision petition.
5. Afsar Ali had appeared as a candidate before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal when he passed his order dated 4‑1‑1971 and had pleaded his case. He did not come up in appeal before the Commissioner. His petition is now barred by limitation. He has not been able to give any justifiable reason for his default or for the condonation of limitation. He cannot therefore, at this stage be impleaded as a party to the revision petition. The case is therefore to be decided between Ghulam Hussain and Hasan Akhtar.
6. In his order dated 4‑1‑1971, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal has given the details of the claims of the respective candidates for the tenancy but in his judgment has not indicated any reasons for his preference of Hasan Akhtar over Ghulam Hussain petitioner. In the order dated 5‑4‑1971, the Commis sioner while discussing the merits and demerits of the two parties finally rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that since the appellant's two brothers already enjoyed similar grants it would amount to concentration of favour in one family if the appellant was also given this grant.
7. During the course of the hearing it has been brought to light that Riaz Hussain, elder brother of the petitioner has a horse breeding tenancy in succession to his father since 1957. Another brother Khadim Hussain was granted a horse breeding tenancy in 1945. The tenancy in dispute was originally a horse breeding tenancy but was later converted into a cattle breeding tenancy. The petitioner therefore has family tradition of breeding and nothing has come on record to show that his family has not fulfilled the obligations and conditions that devolved on them for breeding. It has also come to light during the hearing that there are in all 9 horse breeding grants mostly held by Jats who are all old grantees and that this Chak is pre-dominantly in habited by Jats. It is only recently that some outsiders, specially the family of respondent Hasan Akhtar, who is a Islamabad oustee, have been granted land in this Chak. It has been accepted by Hasan Akhtar during the hearing that he is a Qureshi by caste, has shop in the Chak which is run for him by Abdul Majeed, that he is a Zamindar from Islamabad but has no experience of breeding; and that four lots have been secured by him In the name of two brothers and two sisters, in this Chak as Islamabad oustees.
8. So far as D. R. O.'s recommendation is concerned it is apparent from the order of the Commissioner, dated 5‑4‑1971 that although in the forwarding Memo to the Collector, the D. R. O. sent three names for consideration by the Collector, he considered the other two unsuitable and recommended only the petitioner Ghulam Hussain. The D. R. O. apparently sent three names for technical reasons as he was required to recommend three names in order of preference to the Collector.
9. In this case the following factors have to be given due consideration namely:‑
(i) The Chak is predominantly settled by Jats and out of the 9 horse breeding/cattle breeding tenancies, they are all held by Jats, whereas the respondent is a new‑comer and a Qureshi.
(ii) The petitioner has a family tradition of breeding and can therefore be expected to turn out to be a better breeder than the respondent, who had no previous experience in breeding, and has other interests like running a shop etc.
(iii) The horse breeding/cattle breeding tenancy is for a specific purpose namely horse breeding/cattle breeding and is distinct from common grants for agricultural or resettlement purposes. This tenancy should not be treated as a gift or a favour but as a consideration for the service to be rendered by the tenant in terms of the grant of the tenancy for breeding.
(iv) The District Remount Officer is the technical advisor of the Collector and the Government in connection with breeding operation and is to assist the Government/Collector fn supervising whether the breeding operation is being conducted in accordance with the manner required by the Government. His advice and recommendations are, therefore, normally to be accepted by the Collector/Government unless it can be established that his (D. R. O's) judgment was perverse and unsound.
10. Looked at from the above considerations it will be observed that the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner do not fulfil the criteria laid down above. On the basis of the above criteria it is the petitioner Ghulam Hussain who qualifies for the grant of the tenancy. In view of the above factors I accept the revision petition and order that the tenancy in dispute should be granted in favour of Ghulam Hussain.
Orders may be issued accordingly and the parties may be informed.
Orders accordingly.