'RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---I, would like to dispose of Writ Petitions No,1004 of 2009 and Writ Petition No,1007 of 2009 in the instant petition filed by the petitioners namely Jaffar Shah Muhammad Ayyub Shah and Riaz Ahmad, have assailed the order dated 14-5-2007, 22-11- 2008 and 12-4-2006 passed by respondent No,1 i.e, Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and respondent No,2/E.D.O. Revenue Sahiwal, whereby the order was passed qua fresh allotment of tenancy in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Hakim Bibi wife of Hayat Shah mother of the petitioners was Horse Breeding Tenant of Chak No,15/11-L, Tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal. The lease period was from 13-7-1996 to 12-7-2001. Mst. Hakima Bibi the mother of the petitioners was died on 30-7-2002 and Horse Breeding Tenancy had fallen vacant. The legal heirs of deceased were called and heard by the District Remount Officer, Muhammad Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Ayyub Shah were contesting for the allotment of tenancy whereby Riaz Ahmad Shah surrendered his rights in favour of Muhammad Ayyub Shah. The other legal heirs surrendered their rights in favour of Muhammad Jaffar Shah. The District Remount Officer in its letter dated 29-4-2003 and 5-8-2003 recommended the name of the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar Shah being suitable person candidate. The D.O.R.
Allotted the tenancy to the petitioner Muhammad Jaffar Shah on 8-9-2003 whereupon Muhammad Ayyub Shah petitioner in Writ Petition No,1004 of 2009 filed an appeal against the order dated 8-9-2003 in which EDOR (R)/respondent No, 2 vide order dated 12-6-2006 declared tenancy as open. All the petitioners filed three revision petitions before respondent No,1 i.e, Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and respondent No,1 vide its order dated 14-5-2007 agreed with the E.D.O.(R) and ordered that the tenancy may be allotted afresh in accordance with law and uphold the order passed by the E.D.0.(R). The petitioner Muhammad Jaffar Shah filed a revision petition against the above order which was dismissed by respondent No,1 on 22-1-2008.
Hence these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that order passed by respondents are against the spirit of scheme; that petitioners have been validly recommended by the District Remount Officer and opinion of the District Remount Officer has to be given weight while deciding the Horse Breeding Tenancy as per relevant rules but the E.D.O.(R) and respondent No,1 have not given weight to the recommendations of the District Remount Officer, that petitioner is most suitable and deserving person for the tenancy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Ayyub Shah states that he is most suitable for the tenancy, that respondent has failed to exercise discretion according to the law.
5. Learned Law Officer while supporting the order passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 i.e, Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and Executive District Officer (Revenue).
6. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record available on the file and impugned orders.
7. It appears from the record that legal heirs of the deceased are not on the same wave length of the pitch. The daughter of the deceased allottee has supported Jaffar Shah for the allotment of the tenancy whereas three petitioners/brothers have raised different claims and pleas and vehemently opposed each other. The period of tenancy was six years w.e.f, 30-7-2002 which has come to an end. The question of selection of suitable candidate for the allotment of the tenancy purely domain of the respondent/Government.
8. Para 51 of notification No,4292- 83/2337-CL-I dated 9-8-1983 reads as under:--
51. Disposal of land on death of tenant:
(1) If the tenant dies during the period of tenancy of land shall revert to Government and may be granted to any one of his heirs considered to the fully capable of satisfactorily carrying out the conditions of the grant in all respect for the un-expired period of the lease or to some other tenant subject to such compensation to be paid to the estate of the deceased as may be determined by Government on the recommendations of Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan.
(2) Government shall in no cause be under any obligation to grant of tenancy to the successors of the deceased tenant".
9. Thus it is clear for the above notification that Government is not under obligation to grant of tenancy to the successors of the legal heirs. Admittedly the period of tenancy of six years w.e.f, 30- 7-2002, which has come to an end. The petitioners have no vested right to claim allotment of tenancy as a matter of right. The property in dispute belong to the government, question as to who is suitable candidate for the allotment of tenancy is purely internal matter of the respondents. No person can claim for the allotment as a matter of right. Clauses II and III of Section 10 of Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act (V) of 1912 laid down that no person shall be entitled as of right to become a tenant. It is purely sweet will of the Provincial Government who has absolute decision in selection of tenant for the land referred. Meaning thereby question as to selection of the suitability of the candidate for the allotment of tenancy is purely falls within the ambit of respondents. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the respondents who are highest public functionaries in the revenue hierarchy. This Court cannot substitute its findings with the findings or orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue or E.D.O.R. The impugned order passed by the competent authorities who have the right to decide about the suitability of the candidate for the allotment of the tenancy. This Court cannot hold any inquiry to determine who is suitable for the allotment of the tenancy. Further disputed question of facts cannot be resolved in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute findings or order recorded by the respondents who have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and others (PLD 1976 SC 435).
"High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98---Not justified in interfering with discharge of functions entrusted to Collector under law---Court or tribunal, having jurisdiction, determining a question---Cannot be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity merely for reason of having come to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law---Constitutional provision of Article 98---Not designed to empower High Court to interfere with decision of Court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because of decision being wrong in its opinion."
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned orders appears to be well reasoned and elaborate. I have not been able to identify any illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Member Board of Revenue, so as to warrant interference in the matter. I1. Resultantly, there being no merit in these petitions, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.