BAHAWAL SHER vs SAJAWAL KHAN and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition regarding the allotment of horse-breeding tenancy land. The petitioner, claiming to be an heir of the deceased tenant with a good horse-breeding record, argued that he was entitled to the allotment in preference to outsiders, citing a notification dated 19th February 1952. The core legal question was whether the revenue authorities were bound to allot the tenancy to the petitioner based on his status as an heir with a good record, or whether the Collector possessed the discretion to determine the suitability of the allottee. The Supreme Court held that the revenue authorities are the best judges regarding the suitability of individuals to hold allotments under the horse-breeding tenancy scheme. Finding that the Collector's choice had been consistently upheld through the appellate and revisional hierarchy, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that administrative discretion in such tenancy matters remains with the competent revenue officials.
- Are revenue authorities the final arbiters regarding the suitability of applicants for horse-breeding tenancy allotments?
- Does an heir of a deceased tenant have an absolute right to the allotment of horse-breeding land regardless of the Collector's assessment of suitability?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan dated 27th April, 1985. It involves land of house-breeding tenancy. The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to get the tenancy allotted on the ground that he was heir of the deceased tenant with good horse breeding record. It was submitted that the remount officer had also recommended the petitioner. But the Collector after hearing all the applicants for the said tenancy which was declared an open lot, found respondent No,1 as suitable and made allotment in his favour. The appeals of the petitioner and others were dismissed by the Commissioner. Thereafter the revision of the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue also failed. Eventually he filed writ petition challenging the orders of the Revenue authorities but this was also dismissed in the light of the principle laid down in Subedar Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 SC 435.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the relevant portion of the notification dated 19th February, 1952, under which such 'grants are made states that other things being equal, the tenancy be allowed to heirs of deceased with good horse breeding record in preference to outsiders and that the claim of an heir the allotment is to be preferred subject to suitability of heir. It is argued that since the petitioner was an heir and had good record of horse breeding as stated by D.R.O. He was entitled to get the land. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. The choice of the Collector has been upheld throughout and the revenue authorities are best judges of the suitability of persons to hold the allotment under the horse breeding tenancy scheme. In that view of the matter no interference is called for. As a result this petition is dismissed.