MUHAMMAD ASLAM BAIG vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the resumption of his horse-breeding grant. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner acquired a vested right in the discretionary horse-breeding tenancy grant and if the concurrent findings regarding the breach of tenancy conditions warrant interference. The Supreme Court held that horse-breeding grants are discretionary in character and do not create a vested right in favor of the grantee. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that government grants of a horse-breeding nature are purely discretionary and confer no vested rights upon the tenant, rendering discretionary administrative resumption decisions unassailable in the absence of legal right.
- Does a horse-breeding grant create a vested right for the grantee?
- Can concurrent orders of revenue authorities regarding the breach of tenancy conditions be interfered with when the grant is discretionary?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 19th February 1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The facts are that the petitioner had been granted horse-breeding grant but on the report of the District Remount Officer Sahiwal respecting the breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy, the Collector resumed the tenancy. The order of the Collector was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner and subsequently in revision by the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid orders by way of writ petition which was likewise dismissed by learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that previously on an adverse report of this nature from the District Remount Officer, the Collector had allowed the petitioner to retain the grant. We have heard learned counsel at some length but generally speaking grants of this nature are discretionary in character and no vested right is created in them.
4. ' In that view of the matter we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.