' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide Writ Petition. No.6485 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.5503 of 2002, as these proceed against a common order of respondent No. 1 . This case has a chequred history, however admitted facts are that the disputed land was allotted to one Ahmad s/o Waris under the Horse Breeding Scheme. He died in the year 1952 and the tenancy was allotted afresh to Mst. Zainab, the widow. This lady died on 4-7-1973 issueless. Muhammad Ismail, the deceased writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.5503 of 2002 claiming to be the heir of Ahmad husband of the said deceased lady and Ghulam Muhammad petitioner in Writ Petitioner No.6485 of 2002, on the basis of report of the District Remount Officer had been in contest for the allotment. I may note that at one stage the allotment was made in favour of Muhammad Ismail vide order dated 18-2-1988 of the District Collector and appeal was filed and the Commissioner vide order dated 18-9-1989 remanded back the case for the reason that one Col. Fazal Hussain had not been considered. After the said remand, proceedings were commenced and the D.R.O., Sahiwal recommended Ghulam Muhammad at No.1 vide report dated 2.1-2-1995. Meanwhile Writ Petition No.7155 of 1995 had been filed in this Court questioning the vires of the remand order which was dismissed on 21-10-1999. It was remarked that Muhammad Ismail deceased is clinging to the land to prolong illegal possession. C.P. No.2121-L of 1999 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 22-8-2000 directing the Collector not to be influenced by the observation made by this Court and he will come to his own conclusion. The Collector passed an order dated 13-6-2001 observing that none of the candidates are found suitable by him and he directed the D.R.O. To call fresh applications. Against this order both the said contestants filed appeal which was heard by E.D.O.(R), Khanewal. Vide order dated 20-11-2001, he dismissed the appeal of Ismail but allowed the appeal of Ghulam Muhammad and proceeded to allot the said land to him for 6 years. Ismail filed a revision petition which was allowed by respondent No.1 on 4-7-2002 but to the detriment of both the said contestants he while setting aside the order of the E.D.O.(R) upheld the order dated 13-6- 2001 of the District Collector. Both the said contestants have filed those writ petitions to question the said order.
2. Before I proceed further in this matter, I may note here that Muhammad Ismail had died during pendency of this writ petition. In view of the settled law that the tenancy which is to be granted under the Horse Breeding Scheme for a fixed period to be renewed from time to time and subject to termination on expiry of lease or death of tenant, is not heritable. In the present case, in the first instance Ismail was never leased out the land and even if it had been leased out his heirs were not entitled to inherit the said tenancy. Reference to be made to the case of Sub. Muhammad Ashgar v.
Mst. Safia Begum and another (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 435).
3. Now so far as the case of Ghulam Muhammad is concerned, it is being argued that the D.R.O.
Having recommended him at No.1, the Collector was bound to accept the same. Learned A.A.-G. Is of the opinion that the tenancy not being heritable and further it is for the Provincial Government to select a suitable person for granting the land, the decision of Collector is in order. Learned counsel for the L.Rs. Of the respondent has tried to argue that the tenancy is heritable and the L.Rs. Of Ismail are entitled to be granted lease.
4. I have gone through the records. Now I find that the D.R.O. Did recommend Ghulam Muhammad at No.1, Col. Fazal Hussain at No.2 and Muhammad Ismail at No.3. However the District Collector duly considered the said report. Ghulam Muhammad was given the said recommendation with the remarks that he remained associated with the Horse Breeder Fazal Hussain of the same Chak and had attained sufficient experience and that he is permanent resident of the Chak where the tenancy is situated. Now the Collector has observed that Ghulam Muhammad had not been able to give any documentary proof regarding the said experience. Now I do not find any comments on the said observations of the Collector either in the order of the E.D.O.(R) or the writ petition filed by Ghulam Muhammad. So far as Ismail is concerned, I have already made observations above with reference to the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sub.
Muhammad Asghar. Now Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate, has cited a letter dated 8-3-1982 of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, to urge that it has been directed that the heirs should be preferred. I have examined the said letter and I find that the contention of the learned counsel is not at all supported by the same. On the other hand, the practice of declaring tenancies having fallen vacant on the death of a tenant and thereafter giving preference to the heirs of the deceased has been deprecated and it has been suggested that the tenancy should not be declared to have fallen vacant upon resumption of death of the tenant. The learned counsel has also cited case of Abdul Rab and others v. Wali Muhammad and others (1980 SCM R 139) but it pertains to Ejected Tenant Scheme. Similarly the case of Ali Muhammad and 13 others v. The Province of West Pakistan and another (PLD 1969 Lahore 951), it pertains to Grow More Food Scheme. Whereas the said judgment in the case of Sub. Muhammad Asghar directly arose under the Scheme in question.
5. Resultantly, both the writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.